Science wrong.... again.

but that's ok... because that's what science is all about right? New discoveries... being proven wrong etc etc or so they keep justifying their *SNIP* ups that way anyway.

So why do people continually use science when trying to debunk UFO's?? something they much less understand than even accept.

I came across this the other day.

edition.cnn.com...

(CNN) -- Astronomers announced this week they found a water-rich and relatively nearby planet that's similar in size to Earth.

While the planet probably has too thick of an atmosphere and is too hot to support life similar to that found on Earth, the discovery is being heralded as a major breakthrough in humanity's search for life on other planets.

What particularly cracks me up though was this line:

for many years, astronomers assumed that planets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.

Because of that assumption, researchers didn't spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said. The discovery of this "watery world" helps debunk the notion that Earth-like planets could form only in conditions similar to those in our solar system.

I make note of that particular point.... because this is exactly the issue I have with Science and anyone who uses it as any sort of measuring tool. I mean.... this is another perfect example of the arrogance of the Scientific community... who were so utterly convinced they were right about the behaviour of the planets ... that they did not even bother to spend any time looking for these planets which could contain life.... until they were once again proven wrong. No doubt they were teaching this crap to up and coming scientists in journals as "gospel" as well.

So why should we trust science at all with anything to do with UFOs or crop circles or much less anything else?


[edit on 21-12-2009 by alien]

Because of that assumption, researchers didn't spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said.

If he said that where are the quotation marks?

sounds like the old religious view that life could have only formed here on Earth, the perfect planet the perfect distance from the sun, with the perfect climate....

Uh huh.

Keep living in that puddle.

Originally posted by Total Package
but that's ok... because that's what science is all about right? New discoveries... being proven wrong etc etc or so they keep justifying their f#@k ups that way anyway.

So why do people continually use science when trying to debunk UFO's?? something they much less understand than even accept.

I came across this the other day.

edition.cnn.com...

(CNN) -- Astronomers announced this week they found a water-rich and relatively nearby planet that's similar in size to Earth.

While the planet probably has too thick of an atmosphere and is too hot to support life similar to that found on Earth, the discovery is being heralded as a major breakthrough in humanity's search for life on other planets.

What particularly cracks me up though was this line:

for many years, astronomers assumed that planets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.

Because of that assumption, researchers didn't spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said. The discovery of this "watery world" helps debunk the notion that Earth-like planets could form only in conditions similar to those in our solar system.

I make note of that particular point.... because this is exactly the issue I have with Science and anyone who uses it as any sort of measuring tool. I mean.... this is another perfect example of the arrogance of the Scientific community... who were so utterly convinced they were right about the behaviour of the planets ... that they did not even bother to spend any time looking for these planets which could contain life.... until they were once again proven wrong. No doubt they were teaching this crap to up and coming scientists in journals as "gospel" as well.

So why should we trust science at all with anything to do with UFOs or crop circles or much less anything else?

Hmm perhaps because it was other scientists who challenged the "assumptions" you are making such a big deal about?
Or do you think this planet was discovered by butchers, bakers and candlestick makers?

Originally posted by watcher73

Because of that assumption, researchers didn't spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said.

If he said that where are the quotation marks?

sounds like the old religious view that life could have only formed here on Earth, the perfect planet the perfect distance from the sun, with the perfect climate....

Uh huh.

Keep living in that puddle.

I see. So because the article quoted what he said... but didn't use the correct punctuation..... it's obviously all made up to make science look bad?

[SNIP]

Where does Occam's razor come into this? Is the simpler explanation that CNN didn't use correct punctuation in their article? or that CNN made the quote up completely to make the science community look bad.

Oh I get it... we only use Occam's razor when it suits us right? Pathetic.

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

[edit on 20/12/2009 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by Total Package
but that's ok... because that's what science is all about right? New discoveries... being proven wrong etc etc or so they keep justifying their f#@k ups that way anyway.

So why do people continually use science when trying to debunk UFO's?? something they much less understand than even accept.

I came across this the other day.

edition.cnn.com...

(CNN) -- Astronomers announced this week they found a water-rich and relatively nearby planet that's similar in size to Earth.

While the planet probably has too thick of an atmosphere and is too hot to support life similar to that found on Earth, the discovery is being heralded as a major breakthrough in humanity's search for life on other planets.

What particularly cracks me up though was this line:

for many years, astronomers assumed that planets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.

Because of that assumption, researchers didn't spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said. The discovery of this "watery world" helps debunk the notion that Earth-like planets could form only in conditions similar to those in our solar system.

I make note of that particular point.... because this is exactly the issue I have with Science and anyone who uses it as any sort of measuring tool. I mean.... this is another perfect example of the arrogance of the Scientific community... who were so utterly convinced they were right about the behaviour of the planets ... that they did not even bother to spend any time looking for these planets which could contain life.... until they were once again proven wrong. No doubt they were teaching this crap to up and coming scientists in journals as "gospel" as well.

So why should we trust science at all with anything to do with UFOs or crop circles or much less anything else?

Yeah, stupid science, giving you the internet which you then use to bash science.

Oh wait...

Originally posted by Doglord

Hmm perhaps because it was other scientists who challenged the "assumptions" you are making such a big deal about?
Or do you think this planet was discovered by butchers, bakers and candlestick makers?

What you mean the scientist who did the equivalent of tripping over the planet in front of him.... all of a sudden proves that science is doing it's job?

The fact is they had a theory... yet another flawed theory.... and as a result did not actively look for planets which were literally under their nose. That is Science for you right there. Because 1 scientist lucked out one day when looking through his son's $500 telescope while showing him the moon doesn't mean the science community is right all along.

So again tell me why Science should be used as any sort of measurement for anything.... given how continually wrong they are?

Originally posted by Total Package
this is another perfect example of the arrogance of the Scientific community...

Arrogance? I don't see that. Can you explain how it's arrogant to focus efforts on what is thought to be the best strategy?

who were so utterly convinced they were right about the behaviour of the planets ...

I don't think an "assumption" is fairly defined as "utterly convinced". Nonetheless, I'll point out that you seem "utterly convinced" about the behaviour of scientists.

that they did not even bother to spend any time looking for these planets which could contain life....

Poor job of reading.....great job of overstating what it actually said. They did not spend as much time looking in those places.

until they were once again proven wrong.

Ironic that they proved themselves wrong. And were completely willing to announce it and inform the rest of us. What the huge majority of scientists will not do is to take a piece of text and spin it, falsely, in order to fit an agenda.....much like you've done here.

Hey, you did a good job there rephrasing everything in the article to fit your preconceived notions. Congrats? I guess?

Originally posted by Total Package
Gotta love the way you science scumbags try and squirm out of having to be answerable for anything.

So...who discovered this new planet?

How did you find out about this new planet?

I read your article but then reading your commentary so far confuses me a great deal. Could you just please clear those two things up for me.

Originally posted by Total Package
So again tell me why Science should be used as any sort of measurement for anything.... given how continually wrong they are?

Exactly. Since science is always wrong, how do you know they actually discovered this planet at all? You are relying on science to bash science and you are the only one on this board that seems to be missing that. Either science is bad so science is bad or science is good because you can use science to call old science bad. Which is it?

For what it's worth, most debunking is not done with science as a tool, but rather assuming people are just mistaken in what they saw, or saying it is a hoax, or sometimes using the old fallback excuse of "Oh.. can't explain with conventional means, so we'll go with super-secret government craft."

And science is often wrong. But some fields are "more wrong" than others. That is, if people use stuff like geometry, physics, and other fields that we DO understand very well, that's more acceptable (to me at least), than using old excuses like "Well.. there is no waaaay they could even get here!" Which is exactly what you say, basing a decision on science, but in fields we are really still in our infancy in regards to our advancement and knowledge of those fields. Such as astronomy, quantum mechanics, etc.

But I don't think you have a very valid post to be honest. It's very rarely that UFO sightings are debunked with science that we might be guessing on. Usually science is not used at all. I see a lot more "Chinese lantern lol!" posts than anything, and that's hardly scientific.

Originally posted by seethelight

Yeah, stupid science, giving you the internet which you then use to bash science.

Oh wait...

Again... the internet was invented. So what? For many years they said nobody would have a need to use a computer at home.... and ridiculed people who said it would. Because it did... does that all of a sudden make them right for all the times they were ridiculed?

You see my problem is not science itself. It's the closed minded buffoons who use SCIENCE as we know it as any sort of EVIDENCE when science is continually changing and being proven wrong. The ego in the science community is larger than Jupiter itself.

Originally posted by Total Package
What you mean the scientist who did the equivalent of tripping over the planet in front of him.... all of a sudden proves that science is doing it's job?

Last post in the troll thread.....

Yes, because that's exactly the way it is supposed to work. You need to become better informed about the scientific method. You also need to branch out a bit and discover just how many incredibly useful advances emerged as a result of scientific "oops."

Then come back and try to develop some argument that has a minimal chance of being taken seriously......and not with an obvious troll thread.

Bye...

Edited to fix a redundancy....



[edit on 20-12-2009 by MrPenny]

reply to post by Total Package

but that's ok... because that's what science is all about right? New discoveries... being proven wrong etc etc or so they keep justifying their f#@k ups that way anyway

Yes, that is how science work. Please read Thomas Kuhn "Structure of scientific revolutions". Then come back with some relevant critique of science. Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" but no architect use relativistic mechanics (which is of course also "wrong") when building skyscrapers. And guess what? They are not falling down unless explosives are used. Your ignorance on how science work discredit your point of view.

Originally posted by Total Package
I see. So because the article quoted what he said... but didn't use the correct punctuation..... it's obviously all made up to make science look bad?

Gotta love the way you science scumbags try and squirm out of having to be answerable for anything.

Where does Occam's razor come into this? Is the simpler explanation that CNN didn't use correct punctuation in their article? or that CNN made the quote up completely to make the science community look bad.

Oh I get it... we only use Occam's razor when it suits us right? Pathetic.

Who is we? I never use Occams razor. Its not a law. It's Occams opinion.

There are more than a few instances in that article that arent marked with quotations. I am just wondering why.

You are forgetting that it was still science and a scientist who discovered this planet while you sit and claim "SCIENCE IS WRONG AGAIN!" Who is to say they arent wrong now?

Wheres that slap and shake button mods?

Astronomy is full of this, theory built on theory built on another theory all ready to topple over like jenga blocks.

I remember reading what Saturns rings were made of, before they were visited. Fair play, the first scientist made a theory about this, then the next scientist tweaked and tweaked. When Voyager went to Saturn for the first time, the rings were seen to be made of ice and all the theories came tumbling down.

I do think there is a point to this thread, we see theories held onto very tightly - a scientist preferring a barnd new theory (and not just teweaking the old one) is actually very brave or foolish as they fight the established thinking - until the evidence is so tark that the theory has to change lock stock and barrel.

Keep an eye on the theory of black holes, an incredible amount has been built up around this theory with no singular proof nor mechanism to show the proof.

Originally posted by Total Package
Again... the internet was invented. So what? For many years they said nobody would have a need to use a computer at home.... and ridiculed people who said it would. Because it did... does that all of a sudden make them right for all the times they were ridiculed?

Who said people would not use computers at home? All science agreed about that? It seems to me that the good people at Commodore had some scientists that thought people would use computers at home because they were building and selling them. Apple can make that same claim. I can go on. There are companies that began selling computers to people to use at home. Guess what? They used scientists to make those computers. Were these renegade scientists working underground? Outlaws from what 'Science" agreed on?

You see my problem is not science itself. It's the closed minded buffoons who use SCIENCE as we know it as any sort of EVIDENCE when science is continually changing and being proven wrong. The ego in the science community is larger than Jupiter itself.

Then you should re-read this thread because you bash SCIENCE specifically more than once. You might want to take advantage of the chance to edit them so that they actually match what you are trying to claim you said now.

This:

www.hessdalen.org...

and, the excellent rebuttal (I think there's some excellent stuff in there):

www.itacomm.net...

and, the rebuttal rebuttal :

www.scienzaemistero.com...

Is how things can move on in UFOlogy. I think science has more to offer UFOlogy than people who have made up their mind. Science moves forward through criticism and sceptical thinking.

When science is wrong it's good. When UFOlogy is wrong or allows charlatanry to prosper it doesn't help it in the slightest.

Originally posted by Total Package
You see my problem is not science itself. It's the closed minded buffoons who use SCIENCE as we know it as any sort of EVIDENCE when science is continually changing and being proven wrong.

Then your thread is misdirected, as evidenced by the title. However, judging by your previous posts you clearly direct your rant at science, not anyone or any group of people specifically. So which one is it?

The ego in the science community is larger than Jupiter itself.

That may be the case, but after reading your posts it looks like your ignorance of science easily eclipses that.

Now that astronomers realized that there's plenty of electromagnetic influence going on between planets, especially from Jupiter's huge EM field which at times engulfs even Earth, how does it make Astronomy better than the Astrology which knew this for thousands of years, and with practical application of that knowledge too?

reply to post by Total Package


Well, to make a valid point:

Science: -noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Knowledge: -noun
1 obsolete : cognizance
2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
......(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
...b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
......(2) : the range of one's information or understanding
...c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition
...d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
3 archaic : sexual intercourse
4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
...b : archaic
...c : a branch of learning.

Theory: -noun
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
...b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
...b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
...c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So basically, science is a bunch of guesses until proven correct.

Thus, the OP is slightly correct. Science is based on theories, which is based on knowledge or information. Until the theories are proven to be facts, by science, they are not necessarily right (or wrong). So...