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.

 

Is science a farse?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Is the universe really expanding... I dunno.. according to many scientist it is yet... because of gravitational discrepancies of objects between the viewer and said object all light will be red-shifted to a degree... based on distance!... hmmm Do they take that into account?

It gravity and actual physical force or really just an absence of something.. i.e. space.
Kinds like a tub.. drop something in and the water wants to put pressure on the object and if something is dense enough or large enough it will attract other objects.


And is there a thing beyond sentience called separation? Like sure you have a piece of wood it is long but even though one end is far away it you can still say you are touching the entire piece even though you have one end. Doesn't our universe act the same way... think about it. Everything is actually touching all at once, through forces and matter. I cannot touch the farthest star however I am connected by a unfathomably huge number of particles and charges. Kinda like an ant on earth... it maybe only touching its hill but that hill is linked to every known thing on earth and the earth to its universe.

end rant/ sorry I need to write these down more coherently.




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by IamBoon
 


Science enabled 'spell check'.
You could have used that on your title?

My answer: No, Science isn't a farse, nor a farce. It will help pull us out of the Dark Ages (we are still in them. Look at the obsession with Harry Potter and Twilight. Seriously!).



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
No, but people need to realize the limits of science.

Science is just the best understanding of the time. When it comes to laws and things of that nature, they are things which are "good enough for government work". Meaning, they are good enough that because of them we are able to progress technology. They aren't perfect, they aren't exact, but they are the best understanding for the time.

But there are things beyond science/logic. And that is the philosophy of things you are talking about. It's really just a completely different realm/topic in itself. You can see and understand how all things are connected and so forth, but how does that make your car go?

So if you want to somehow figure out how to use that connection through your consciousness to go to places or something, science probably isn't going to give you that kind of a break through. But if you wanna ride in a ship to get there, then it probably will be.

The way I see it, sometimes a spoon is the best tool for a meal, and sometimes the fork is the best tool. Do you want to work within the current perspective - science, or do you want to work on changing the perspective itself - philosophy?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by IamBoon
 


science is just a methodology. you wouldn't be discussing the examples you are discussing if not for - science.

you're just talking about a couple of theories, and wondering if they're correct or not. that's part of science too.

o ya - that computer you're using - also thanks to science.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by IamBoon
 


Science is amazing. Outside of your parents coupling, for instance, to create you, there were other factors at work.

Thank goodness for science, and God letting us play with us.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have a thread with a title now, would ya?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Science is a tool. It can be good or bad.

I think it's bad when closed minded scientist take science to be thier religion and will not believe anything is possible unless they already have absolute proof. That is so silly because there are things about science and physics we don't have answers for that could one day explain things we don't understand today.

A great example of this are many people on the site scienceforums.com. I have been on there asking questions about things like Ghost and UFO's and alternitave energy devices, and they maintain all those thing must by false because thier science says so and that's the end of it. It's thier religion and it has so closed thier minds.

They won't even consider the posibility that there could be missing information that could scientifically explain these things. These people are very dificult to talk to. They have blinders on and they cannot see it because thier twisted ideology tells them they are scientists and therefore they are openminded when thier minds are slamed shut. This will be clear to anyone who reads enough of the post on that board.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Personally, I feel that the word science is used too loosely (as is the word skepticism.)

Science is a method. There are many "sciences," however science, ultimately, is the method by which one investigates and attempts to explain the universe around us. It requires rigor, proof, and when there is none (or when there is merely evidence but not absolute proof,) abstention from adopting what would otherwise be facts.

I find it ironic that many ostensible proponents of science do not in fact practice scientific rigor when making declaration or assertions with regard to what is and is not real, for example. Much of what is regarded as "scientific fact" is, in actual fact, scientific theory with scientifically gathered supporting evidence which, in many, many cases, does not fully constitute absolute, undeniable proof.

Evidence is not proof, and no matter how seemingly obvious the conclusions jumped to - however small that leap may be - based on said evidence, they are still theories and not facts, except when they are - as they frequently, and sadly, are - embraced as facts anyway. Then they are something much more insidious: assumptions.

And assumptions are not scientific.

That's just my opinion, though.

[edit on 11/29/2009 by AceWombat04]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Personally, I feel that the word science is used too loosely (as is the word skepticism.)

Science is a method. There are many "sciences," however science, ultimately, is the method by which one investigates and attempts to explain the universe around us. It requires rigor, proof, and when there is none (or when there is merely evidence but not absolute proof,) abstention from adopting what would otherwise be facts.

I find it ironic that many ostensible proponents of science do not in fact practice scientific rigor when making declaration or assertions with regard to what is and is not real, for example. Much of what is regarded as "scientific fact" is, in actual fact, scientific theory with scientifically gathered supporting evidence which, in many, many cases, does not fully constitute absolute, undeniable proof.

Evidence is not proof, and no matter how seemingly obvious the conclusions jumped to - however small that leap may be - based on said evidence, they are still theories and not facts, except when they are - as they frequently, and sadly, are - embraced as facts anyway. Then they are something much more insidious: assumptions.

And assumptions are not scientific.

That's just my opinion, though.


Damn, I was going to post the almost exact same thing as your last paragraph. Anytime, anyone, especially here on ATS states something as fact I just roll my eyes.

Assumptions, irrevocable facts and asses have the same thing in common.

An idiot usually has all three.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 



It was taught to me in school like this. First you form a hypothesis then you carry out experiments to test that hypothesis. If your experiments validate the hypothesis and it's repeatable, only then may you claim you have scientific proof.

I believe scientific proof and scientific possibility are two different things. Like the people I spoke of in my post above, unles they already have the proof, they won't consider something possible. I ask them "how can you say it's not possible if you don't have proof one way or the other.. some things that are known phenomna cannot yet be measured by science?".. they tell me the burden of proof is on me.. thats thier pat answer.. Thier argument becomes circular.

I want to scream at them "Look you bumbling idoits we are talking about scientific posibilities, not absolute scientific proof because the thing, the phenomna cannot yet be measured with our present understanding of physics or science!"

They just don't understand this thinking and maintain I must be wrong and they won't even talk about what may or may not be possible. - If they refuse to think thusly, no wonder there are so few real American scienists. They become stagnent in thier thinking and it keeps hem from forming more hypothesis's for testing.

OF course most of these same peopl do nothing all day but post on a message board. If they are really doing something good for science, I can't see it.


You know folks.. there are many theories we have about the universe that cannot be proven by science.. yet scientist speak of these thing as if they are facts.. like the big bang theory.. you see.. it's a double standard.. they chose to believe that which suits them.









[edit on 29-11-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Yes, and that's part of what I'm talking about. People who say that something is scientifically impossible about things which have yet to be proved so are in fact not being scientific of skeptical at all. They are engaging in pseudo-science and/or pseudo-skepticism.

To make an assertion or statement of fact without proof - including the statement or assertion that something is not real, possible, or true - is not scientific or skeptical. A lot of people seem to think that it is, though, unfortunately. That's why there's such a perceived divide between skeptics and believers.

In reality, science and skepticism are open minded to the greatest extent possible, unless something can be unequivocally proven. Even then, science accepts the possibility, however slight, that its measurements, perceptions, and proofs might be wrong. Most people skip that part though, and simply take "scientific facts" as immutable.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Yeah, science is a joke. It's a laughing joke. Science is based on the observed, but as we all know, observation is subjective. Any lawyer can tell you that. Eye witness testimony varies from one person to another. Even a casual visit to the museum will prove this to you. Go to the museum and look at an abstract painting. Everyone give you a different interpretation on it. Ask a scientist what a picture by Cezanne is, and he'll tell you that it's just reflected radiation off of oil-based chemicals. otoh, any human being could tell you that it's a mountain. Science is a cheap and failed imitation of religion. It makes us a slave of our own failed interpretations on reality. Look at the science of economics, global warming, tobacco addiction, etc...they're all failures.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
My answer: No, Science isn't a farse, nor a farce. It will help pull us out of the Dark Ages (we are still in them. Look at the obsession with Harry Potter and Twilight. Seriously!).


Look at germany some of the greatest minds on the planet and into the occult. most of the best science people have been into occult activities, so you clearly have no knowledge of thinking outside the box. Like what kaku says, what seems like magic today will be science tomorrow.

The nazis showed what they did, and they where all massively into this stuff.

The occult though is something people should be wary of, as the saying is true be careful what you wish for, lol.

But on science alot of the stuff told to us in the outside world, is garbage. Its just there to keep the masses dumbed down, and maybe thats right in certain ways of thinking.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

The nazis showed what they did, and they where all massively into this stuff.


What did the nazis do? What science pertaining to the occult that was valid and duplicatable today did they show that is being denied to us?

Please give me something o study about this.. lets say they used occult knowledge to make a time machine.. you said they showed their science. I want to check this science out. If they actually did stuff then, we can do it again now.. if its real science.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by aorAki
My answer: No, Science isn't a farse, nor a farce. It will help pull us out of the Dark Ages (we are still in them. Look at the obsession with Harry Potter and Twilight. Seriously!).

so you clearly have no knowledge of thinking outside the box


You obviously know nothing about me.


Originally posted by andy1033The occult though is something people should be wary of, as the saying is true be careful what you wish for, lol


See the 'Dark Ages' reference. You obviously know nothing about much at all. Take your blinkers off


[edit on 29-11-2009 by aorAki]

[edit on 29-11-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


You know nothing of the world, if you think the occult plays no role in science. All the best people in science have been into the occult, and its practice and thats religion.

So much of the science given to the public is a farce, just saying its not, will not prove it either way.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Science is nothing but our best guess at the time my friend. Things will become more and more confusing as we continue to break down and disregard some of the theories which we have used for hundreds of years.

Quantum physics for example is really changing the way we look at things, but in the end it's all just theory.

~Keeper



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by aorAki
 


You know nothing of the world, if you think the occult plays no role in science. All the best people in science have been into the occult, and its practice and thats religion.


Iain MacDiarmid
Fred Hoyle
Ernest Rutherford
Leslie Comrie
G.H. Cunningham
Sir James Hector
Sir Archie McIndoe
William Pickering
Robert Webster
Maurice Wilkins
John Britten
Richard Pearse


These people had one thing in common, but it wasn't the occult.

It's not as pervasive as you fear.


[edit on 29-11-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by radio_for_peace
Yeah, science is a joke. It's a laughing joke. Science is based on the observed, but as we all know, observation is subjective. Any lawyer can tell you that. Eye witness testimony varies from one person to another. Even a casual visit to the museum will prove this to you. Go to the museum and look at an abstract painting. Everyone give you a different interpretation on it. Ask a scientist what a picture by Cezanne is, and he'll tell you that it's just reflected radiation off of oil-based chemicals. otoh, any human being could tell you that it's a mountain. Science is a cheap and failed imitation of religion. It makes us a slave of our own failed interpretations on reality. Look at the science of economics, global warming, tobacco addiction, etc...they're all failures.



Really? So the mathematics of physics are subjective? What about the elemental properties in chemistry? What about biology and genetics? Tell me, if science is subjective, then why don't we have billions of different theories to make up for the subjective differences in every aspect of science?

Can you please elaborate on how science is a failed imitation of religion? Science uses empirical evidence and religion uses faith; surely you understand the difference between the two (I hope).

I'm not sure what economics have to do with science, or tobacco addiction for that matter, but global warming is an example of what happens to science when you politicize it. Look at all the ridiculous brainwashing Al Gore has done to people that do not understand the real science behind it. He can't even get his facts straight.

I honestly don't know how someone can string together this amount of fallacies in one short paragraph...



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamBoon
Is the universe really expanding... I dunno.. according to many scientist it is yet... because of gravitational discrepancies of objects between the viewer and said object all light will be red-shifted to a degree... based on distance!... hmmm Do they take that into account?


No - not gravity, it's the Doppler effect - while gravity can have an effect on light, it has to be a lot of gravity and usually highly focused, a black hole for instance...

Nope the reason object moving away from us are shifter toward to red end of the spectrum is simply because light is a little bit wavy!





You see from your relative position the waves emitted from a moving object will either be compressed (higher frequency - for light the bluer end of the spectrum) or 'stretched' out (lower frequency - for light the redder end of the spectrum)...

This is really simple science - if you don't like it them study creationism or something



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
science and the occult go hand in hand like peanut butter and cthulhu.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join