It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


People who criticise science should stop using the internet!!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:19 PM
What DeathShield said. Excellently put!

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Fri Jan 8 2010 by Jbird]

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:32 PM
I will tell you, I wasn't off topic...I simply was "hinting" at what type of "reasoning is being used in this thread by the OP".

So, to make it clearer, I will add-

Look...the internet is a place to "find information" for some...and a place to "share communication" for others.

A love or dislike for science has "nothing" to do with one's right to communication or information.

If you want to judge people on "their personal beliefs" and then say "those beliefs" should remove your rights to use a technology...then can we go so far as to say-

People who criticize the government shouldn't be allowed to vote?


People who criticize books shouldn't be allowed to read?


People who criticize people shouldn't be allowed to live?

Do you get me here? Do you see where this line of thinking begins to bring us towards when we start to apply it to other things in life?

Anyways...I was "on" topic, and now I am "on topic even more".

I ask that you "attempt" to change your ideals on "removing technology" from people who criticize science.

Especially since many levels and forms of science are fraudulent and are worthy of criticism...even by thousands of scientists.

This leads me to my last sentence-

Should thousands of scientists worldwide be removed from using the internet for criticizing science?

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Mr Mask]

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:53 PM
People who criticize science for being wrong just don't understand science, or don't want to believe in some of its findings. Debunking of a godly intelligent design comes to mind. There only argument is science was wrong in the past so it has to be wrong now.

It is always one of those two things.
Anyone who understands science knows error is bound to happen, it is necessary in success.
Anyone who uses past unrelated errors as there only argument are not rational and should just be ignored.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by Deny Arrogance

People who can't spell criticize properly shouldn't write baseless inflammatory headlines!!!
What do you have against spell check?

an exelent point well made, thank you for illustrating the typical thinking of a person with a single digit IQ number.

erm i dont like what this threads saying but ive got no valid points against it so ill just insult who ever wrote it on their spelling. BOY OH BOY am i jelous i havent got your brain

( realising your current level of thinking i thought it be best i point out that last line was sarcastic, not sure if ud have picked up on that )

[edit on 8-1-2010 by C1OUD]

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by Mr Mask

I will tell you, I wasn't off topic...I simply was "hinting" at what type of "reasoning is being used in this thread by the OP".

So, to make it clearer, I will add-

Look...the internet is a place to "find information" for some...and a place to "share communication" for others.

A love or dislike for science has "nothing" to do with one's right to communication or information.

If you want to judge people on "their personal beliefs" and then say "those beliefs" should remove your rights to use a technology...then can we go so far as to say

i fear i may have worded this thread awefully as every has the wrong end of the stick. im not saying if you dont beleive in certain aspects of science you shouldnt get internet. i was mearly illustrating the ironicness of sombody testifying the terribleness of science ( as a disipline not a specific theory ) using a product of science the internet. they will be watching television using electricity to stay warm. you wouldnt have these things if we didnt have any science, so the point is. would u like to move back into the stone age and have no science, or simply stop moaning because we dont get every theory correct

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:59 PM
Yeah I think science is wrong point blank -- from the get go and into the future -- for reasons of structural logic.

As J. Allen Hynek stated: "Violation of logic is not proof." Logic actually is beyond science. Logical inference frames science.

I would be happy to give more information -- I have a masters degree and I've focused on exposing the evils of science by using music theory. I've done applied policy work.

As for me using technology -- again my critique is structural -- technology is structural -- there's no choice about whether to use it or not.

Consider a tribe in the Amazon in Peru -- it was on cable last night - OutLaw Amazon. Great show.

So this tribe now has created militias -- some 6000 militias of maybe half a dozen men -- the militias still use bow and arrows but now also use guns.

Why use guns if they want to maintain their tribal lifestyle? Because they have no choice -- they are being invaded by coc aine farmers.

That's just one example -- I call this the "trajectory of tantric technology" as rational thinking is actually a projection of internal bodily desire.

Professor David F. Noble's work is great on this subject -- he was a M.I.T. but got fired for his political views.

"America by Design" exposes how science is controlled by elite secret societies.

"Forces of Production" exposes how the same elite secret societies attack inventors to make sure the inventor gives us patent control. So it's not about efficiency -- it's about technological military power. M.I.T. is a stronghold for this.

Then there's David F. Noble's book, "The Religion of Technology" -- he goes back to the 9th C. on that one. He has a newer one going back to the ancient City States of Western Asia.

I do this in my research as well -- science is really just a continuation of the "divide and average" mathematics of India, Babylon, Egypt, China, etc.

The Greek Miracle was to combine the math of the other cultures, along with axiomatic logic along with legal control of patents. So you have a package deal of economic control -- and even eugenics.

You can read my blog for more details.

There's about 20 years of freshwater left on the planet. Sure science works but the question is for whom? We've had about 5,000 different languages on Earth wiped out in the last 100 years since industrialism really kicked in. Science works by expanding a monocultural imperialism.

Read Professor Alfred Crosby's excellent book "Ecological Imperialism."

Or you can read John Gray's books -- Straw Dogs.

So if you want to learn about the "enemy's" perspective there's more than enough outlets.

I trained with a qigong master who sat in full-lotus for 49 days in a cave needing no water, no food and no sleep --

So that's traditional Chinese culture -- it's based on complementary opposites -- and I traced this back to the Bushmen culture of humans. The Bushmen were more like the Bonobo pgymy chimps whereas modern humans were more like chimpanzees.

Female chimps use spears for hunting so that the females will not be raped by the males who demand sex when they bring home meat.

So science and technology is really a means for females to protect themselves from rape -- but it really doesn't solve the basic mind-body source of violence in males.

Read Professor Robert Sapolsky's books for more details -- MunkeyLuv and "The Trouble with Testosterone" -- he studies how stress leads to violence in primates. When male primates ejaculate it triggers the stress nervous system.

So the secret is that Nature is female -- that males are not really needed - that male primates should only rarely ejaculate -- and thereby males can heal themselves and others and not need technology nor science.

Obviously when humans expanded into cold climates we coevolved with technology to do so. But that doesn't shy away from the fact that technology has all these externalities -- a culture of violence and destruction of ecology.

Essentially left-brain dominant humans using right-hand technology are replacing left-hand dominant carbon-based molecules (ecology) with right-hand assymetric silica-based molecules (technology) and thereby destroying right-brain dominant perception in Nature.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by C1OUD

I am not anti-science, but I am in disagreement with the current approach to our search for knowledge. Along with our attempts to understand the physical nuts and bolts of the universe. I believe we should focus as much attention on our full human potential.

Who would use the internet if you could contain all the knowledge of the universe within your consciousness?

Who would use a cell phone if communication could happen just by thinking of a person?

Who would seek a doctor if you could heal yourself?

Who would use transport if you could travel anywhere by thought alone?

There is just nothing that science could do better if we fully understood what we are.

Science completely rules out spirituality and our consciousness because it does not understand it.

If scholars where to explore these things and prove it to our collective minds it could become a reality.

A few hundred years of modern science and yet academia don't even go their.

My entire argument is, that for mankind to progress beyond a basic level, we have to fund more research into the esoteric.

I have stated a number of times that there are more ways of knowing than through a mathematical equation.

Where we have arrived at scientifically is impressive and of course we are going to use it. I would not refuse to warm my self by a fire just because I disagreed
with the explanation of what caused it.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

I hope that was a joke. I apologise if it was a joke. If it was a joke, you don't know how much Gore did actually do to get us the internet. Vint Cerf, the technical father of the internet, said this about Al Gore:

Al Gore had seen what happened with the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, which his father introduced as a military bill. It was very powerful. Housing went up, suburban boom happened, everybody became mobile. Al was attuned to the power of networking much more than any of his elective colleagues. His initiatives led directly to the commercialization of the Internet. So he really does deserve credit.

But I guess it's more fun to laugh at the guy who gave you the voice to laugh, than to accept he has accomplished more in his life already than most, if not all of us reading this, ever will.

reply to post by munkey66

If you believe "climate science" is wrong because of an unscientific reason, then yes, you should. If you believe it's wrong, due to unscientific principles, to create human/animal hybrids, then yes, stop using the internet. Well, you can continue to use the internet, but you'll be a hypocrite.

It's all fine and well to criticise science, as long as you use the scientific method to criticise the current position, as that's the essence of science. If you don't, and just wade in screaming about how you know best and evidence be damned, then you're being awfully hypocritical, biting the hand that feeds you. If everyone acted in that way, we'd still be living in caves throwing poo at each other.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:27 PM
most people seem to have problems with science only when it disagrees with the goatskin transcripts of an ancestors imaginary friends' discussions with themselves.

seriously it's time to leave the caves people,science may not be perfect but its better than the alternative.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by the_grand_pooh-bah

You know snot nosed prejudice such as that is what causes anti-scientific rhetoric. Most creationists such as myself have no problem with the study of evolution or other biological sciences, what we have a problem with is people who think that somehow the existence of it magically invalidates an argument for a creator. It has nothing to do with " disagreeing with goat skinned books about conversations with imaginary friends" and how you were even able to come to that conclusion is beyond all logical and rational reasoning. I can only assume it is purely reasoned via emotional bias.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by DeathShield

actually your assessment is pretty much spot on.
I'm agnostic and i feel any certainty in the creator question is pure arrogance.
I have been under assault from many directions over my views lately and have even been labeled evil for not believing something others do. even though a good part of almost every day is spent doing unpaid charity work,the rest is on my other projects.
I do it because i want to help,not out of fear of god.
but because i don't buy their bs i'm evil.

all i say is prove it.
if the creator wanted me to have blind faith wouldn't i have it?
so what i said is true even if worded in a snot-nosed manner.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by the_grand_pooh-bah]

<< 1   >>

log in