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.

 

Science wrong.... again.

page: 7
36
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Great Idea!

Hey umm, I believe in science but can I go back to the dark ages with them too? I think I would be happier.




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


All Im trying to say , is that the very idea of the most advanced minds on our planet, not having figured a better way to look across the distances and see what is to be seen, is a bit staggering . The entire problem is that they are looking for what they will recognise . They shouldnt be.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Originally posted by Helmkat
Bad bad science!

We should all be in the trees eating bugs and fruit!

Personally I kinda like science.

Not sure what you have against science OP since without it you probably would of died a long time ago, eaten by a Lion or succumb to an infected tooth.


Because finding far away planets totally saved me from a man-eating lion. Sending rockets to the moon sure fixed my infected tooth!


No because Science gave man the tools to fight back the predators of the night, because science gave man medicine. The OP rails against science, yet it is the very vehicle that allows him to voice his opinion and live as something more then average creature on this planet.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by sphinx551
I think a lot of scientists are payed by the government to keep regular people in the dark. They are not going to tell the real truth and they misinform people on a lot of things and people believe them.

As are apparently a lot of spelling teachers. I wish the government would pay me to keep people in the dark. That might be more fun than doing autopsies on 6 year old little girls.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Great Idea!

Hey umm, I believe in science but can I go back to the dark ages with them too? I think I would be happier.

At least no grant proposals to write.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I think that the Scientific method is the best thing to go by, having said that I just don't understand why Modern science seems to be so far off base.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 



the very idea of the most advanced minds on our planet, not having figured a better way to look across the distances and see what is to be seen, is a bit staggering . The entire problem is that they are looking for what they will recognise . They shouldnt be.


this post shows you know nothing about astronomy, whats been acheived in astronomy or whats being developed in astronomy. Go learn something about exoplanetary science then come back and apologise.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

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?


Science is imperfect because science is a process that is then carried out by people, and people will always be imperfect. If you have a better alternative you have not presented it so far. If you don't have a better alternative then I suppose the purpose of this thread is just to rant or collect points.

-rrr



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
The entire problem is that they are looking for what they will recognise . They shouldnt be.


So tell us...how is it possible to find things that are "unrecognized?" How is a search conducted, when by definition, the "things" sought are outside of perception?

If you're so adamant that "they shouldnt [sic] be", please offer some strategies for finding what cannot be recognized.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Why the hell should I apologise? Have I hurt your feelings? Get the hell over it. I think things are moving damned slow, and I refuse point blank to apologise for holding that opinion, or indeed letting others know how I feel.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Science is a model of how to methodically present and then disprove or fail to disprove ideas.

Essentially, the idea IS TO PROVE EACH IDEA PRESENTED AS WRONG.

If it cannot be proven to be incorrect, wholy or partially, often enough it stands well enough to posit it is as correct as it can be as it is currently understood.

So yeah. Science is always wrong.

That's the point.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


its a view born of ignorance. Money is the key factor in achieving anything in astronomy theres no lack of ideas on how to acheive our goals.



[edit on 21-12-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

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?



Here is the flaw in that lign of thinking....."what is thought to be" .....

This is just agreeing to agree, which has no accounting for actual facts or the reality of the situation.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


You think things are moving slow? Good thing you're insulting the hard working scientific minds then, rather than HELPING OUT!



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I think Total Package is a disinformation agent and saboteur. Think about it; instead of discussing something vital and important insofar as this forum is concerned, we've spent multiple pages discussing a buffoonish attack on science. If that isn't the work of a disinformation agent, I don't know what is.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


I'd like to believe that. It would put me at ease instead of realizing that there are such ignorant, stubborn people in the world. Sadly enough he thinks himself the UFO gunslinger who's sole purpose is to bash the silly skeptics and to revolutionize ATS into his own playground.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by havok


It all started with language and it all started thousands of years ago. We are just proving that its a good way to explain things.

for provoking my mind this morning!



I really have no idea what point you are trying to make but I also have little confidence in your information. Math is the concept of numbers. This existed long before language. Before the words "two" and "opal" were ever thought up, people already understood the concept of two being twice as many as one. I am not sure what you are on about or how it even applies to the little joke I tried to make but math came first. You are just talking about the development of language and how different ones decided to apply those language to the already well understood concept of math.


I think I got the gist of what he meant. If you want a formal description try reading this:

en.wikipedia.org...'s_incompleteness_theorems

Basically absolute "rightness" of any system of axioms cannot be ascertained.

-rrr



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
And all this because someone didn't know what science is about, and how it changes over the time...





posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
The only people I've ever heard say what you just did . . . are fundi-christians and those who lack any understanding on the scientific method (or the work that goes into testing and how accurate theorhetical models actually are).

As you were asked before . . . can you show an actual example of this happening in the scientific community that doesn't come from an evangelical op-ed?


Do you really need proof for every instance someone quotes Newton's law of thermodynamics or something similar and stops any objective thinking? I'm not advocating an avoidance of science, I'm saying that scientists needs to keep an open mind. I used a comparison to religion as how NOT to view science and avoid blind faith in what we think we "know".

Maybe I wrote my post a bit too tongue in cheek but the last two lines should have clarified my position.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
That's a good question. In fact in noncommutative geometry which is the mathematics for quantum chaos cosmology -- 1 plus 1 does not equal 2.

That is developed by Alain Connes and Connes states that the future is schizotypal, best modeled by music whereby a person hears several different voices at the same time. Sort of multitasking from information overload -- with a quantum superposition to find the proper reaction.

Still that doesn't mean I embrace Alain Connes' mathematics. My masters thesis "epicenters of justice" (readable freely online) argues that nonwestern logic converges with quantum chaos math but the two are still dialectical opposites. Nonwestern math was based on cultures in ecological harmony and social justice -- primarily the Bushmen culture which had no warfare and is the oldest human culture -- 90% of human history is Bushmen culture -- before 10,000 BCE.

So in nonwestern music 1 plus 1 does not equal 2 because the octaves as the ratio 1:2 resonate through complementary opposites. The mathematical answer is inferred logically -- just as the source of the I-thought is pure consciousness. You can not see consciousness but it creates light that bends spacetime -- you can listen to consciousness though. So 1 is like the I-thought --

My blog goes into more details naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com...


Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by drew hempel
 


but uh....2 + 2 still equals 4 right?

I mean, I am just saying. You are not looking to disprove MATH are you or just certain advanced mathematical theorems? Now I am curious.




top topics



 
36
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join