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 Gets It Right Again - Before You Post ......

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I can appreciate what you're saying. It seems to me that science has, in many cases, become every bit as dogmatic as religions have these days.

For example, go to a state university, go up to a science major and simply ask a question that even remotely sounds like you're questioning evolution, and they will invariably go ballistic. I asked one to clarify a few points of human evolution one time and was treated to a ten minute lecture on how b.s. creationism is.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


It works both ways. If ridicule was "Stamped out" as the OP suggested, then there would be far more people believing the Sun revolves around the Earth s.


You mean it doesn't?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Im not a scientific person, but science is still setting limitations today that shouldn't be there today.

what about the smallest number idea, like looking at a fractals we can see it keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller, it "should" go on for infinity, but according to science (and i cant remember who i can quote because i heard it so long ago) they created the smallest number, and i cant remember what it was, but it was like "thats it, no more.. it just doesn't get any smaller then this number" but that has to be wrong. we see it everyday as new things are created smaller and smaller. its always being disproved a smallest number shouldn't exist and neither should a biggest number. but it does according to some people who are considered the smartest of the smart of the monkey/human population.

who knows about this and can refresh my memory?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Science is based in theory but born out of facts. We have scientific information on a given subject that can be tested and proven. On the other side we have theories and wild claims. for it to be a scientific approach, it needs to be testable.

Without criticism we wouldn't strive to understand, we'd assume the first persons opinion as fact (as some do here). Me for example, I'm a science oriented guy interested in the paranormal and such. When I poo poo on someones theory I provide information and examples as to why I'm doing this. For me to do that responsibly, I get as much information on the subject as I can.

This is how it should be working.

you can have any theory you want, but those on the side of science will expect evidence, something testable. You can theorize about faster than light travel all you want, but current TESTED science says it's not in the realm of possibility because of MASS.

You can poo poo the theory of evolution, but we can provide TESTED facts to support the theory.

Until the people posting wild theories can provide ANYTHING of substance, they should expect the scientific community to take aim at it. Science itself doesn't care either way, it's job is to find the HOW, to describe the system at work. The problem is funding, and the top outfits are competing for funding and we all suffer.

Science can indeed be wrong, because we simply don't know EVERYTHING, we're striving to learn it, through applied science. Before colliders, we thought atoms were about the smallest object in our reality and based our scientific models on that. UNTIL we proved that wasn't the case with replicated testing, which is the core of science in general.

If you have a theory it's just that, an idea. If you expect it to be recognized, you'd better have some method of testing that other people can replicate.

cold fusion for example, in my lifetime a lone I've seen at least 10 different groups claim they've done it, but no one could replicate the tests (cause it was a HOAX)

Same with these special electrolysis methods for splitting hydrogen from water with little energy input, no one could replicate the tests.

A theory will only become fact when it can be tested. There is no reason to ignore centuries of scientific advancement because someone's theory doesn't fit in with reality.

there is also no reason to ridicule, but people here take any form of criticism as ridicule.

=======
I do recall seeing something about the largest possible number, and it's not that it can't go higher, it's that with our current numerical models, we have no method to express it. As for the smallest number, without going into fractions and crap, that would be 1 wouldn't it?

This fellow sums it up nicely:


There is no such thing as a highest possible number. No matter what number you have, there is always a larger one. (For example, you could always add 1 to your number to get a larger number). What you are intending to ask is "what is the largest number that anyone has ever decided to give a specific name to?" It is very important to understand that this is a completely different question from the one you asked, because it is a question about human culture not about mathematics. The largest number that has a commonly-known specific name is a "googleplex", which is a 1 followed by a googol zeros, where a "googol" is (IMAGE) (a 1 followed by 100 zeros).


Source



of the smart of the monkey/human population


I'll take that as a sly hit against evolution. Let me clear something up that creationists conveniently ignore. No one every said man evolved from Monkeys. Man evolved from a common ancestor somewhere along the lines called "the missing link".
edit on 22-3-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekeye2

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by Seekeye2

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
If you eliminate ridicule for far-fetched ideas we'll find ourselves developing technology that is outright fraudulous and a waste of money. The current state of ridicule is excellent, every new idea must first meet the onslaught of the intellectuals and if it makes it through it is viable as a technological breakthrough. It is it's "test"

There is nothing that needs changing here.


There is big difference between Ridicule and Debate don't you think?


Seekeye2:
"Facts" are not "debateable" .or they wouldn't be "facts."
"What wine"goes" with hormel chili? is President Obama a "good"choice for the job? all that personally subjective stuff is "debateable,

What goes on here is less debate and more "education"in basic commonly taught and accepted science.and math.

Look: Iam not saying "we will never tap into an energy source fron outside our: (Mem) "brane" (i.e. dimemsion) ! but if we do it will still follow the laws of thermodynamics including "entropy" and conservation of energy.Or it wil be an entirely new class of something and require new physics to understand it. but to jump on here screaming:"Tesla had it all figured out 100+ years ago and here's: "PROOF" is not "debate" it's "masturbation": it feels good but means little.

edit on 22-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


So are you saying that we can't debate the facts and how they can be utilized and applied in order to prove or disprove a theory?


- "Black is not white."
- "So, do you mean to say green is not blue"?

See, he, kind of, gave a DEFINITION of the word "fact" or at least, what it implies and said nothing about using it as a TOOL to dis/prove other theories.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekeye2

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by Seekeye2

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
If you eliminate ridicule for far-fetched ideas we'll find ourselves developing technology that is outright fraudulous and a waste of money. The current state of ridicule is excellent, every new idea must first meet the onslaught of the intellectuals and if it makes it through it is viable as a technological breakthrough. It is it's "test"

There is nothing that needs changing here.


There is big difference between Ridicule and Debate don't you think?


Seekeye2:
"Facts" are not "debateable" .or they wouldn't be "facts."
"What wine"goes" with hormel chili? is President Obama a "good"choice for the job? all that personally subjective stuff is "debateable,

What goes on here is less debate and more "education"in basic commonly taught and accepted science.and math.

Look: Iam not saying "we will never tap into an energy source fron outside our: (Mem) "brane" (i.e. dimemsion) ! but if we do it will still follow the laws of thermodynamics including "entropy" and conservation of energy.Or it wil be an entirely new class of something and require new physics to understand it. but to jump on here screaming:"Tesla had it all figured out 100+ years ago and here's: "PROOF" is not "debate" it's "masturbation": it feels good but means little.

edit on 22-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


So are you saying that we can't debate the facts and how they can be utilized and applied in order to prove or disprove a theory?

Sucked into yet another pointless thread.

Re-reading what I posted last night I guess it comes down to the semantics of the word "debate":
'fer instance:
"I can hook an electric motor up to the the shaft of a generator and create a portable free electricity(perpetual motion) machine."
"No.... you can't; because of this; this and this.
"Yes I can; because "we all know" theyare buying up and hiding all "scalar energy" research and Tesla's working free energy technology ( i.e."perpetual motion") machines..."

Is not "debate":

You are putting assumptions; opinions' internet snake oil salesman ( like "Tom Beardon"); "flights of fancy"; and wishes up as "PROOF" against tested;independently reproducible; explainable results. Science has this ONE THING going for it:

Say "I" and a few hundred physicists (and I am NOT personally a "physicist") find a "secret" hidden 12th dimension underneath the currently theoretical #11 at cern in Geneva.I can jump on a plane to Fermilab in Chicago and if they can setup the same experiment. it will either show up for those Chicago scientists to be verified; Or its "JUNK". After all the available data from various experiments is "peer reviewed"and independently verified it is added to our base of knowledge as a 'FACT".

There's your debate. I guess you could sarcastically say:"
It was carried out by the high priests".
It's highly encouraged to question and research but to disregard humanities cumulative work as "frivolous".or just "primitive". strikes me as "medieval ignorance"
Guess its yet another character flaw for me to take up between myself and the late night campfire...

'nuff said..


edit on 22-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Ignorance of the old and bewildered limit the imaginative potential of an uprising generation of youth. This is why many youth rebel against the older generations. Because our new ideas can be created by us, but not them. They, the older generations, might have some wisdom. But we, the younger generations full of potential, dismiss their wisdom for ignorance until we experience trial and error on our own imagination and gain wisdom and insight.

Science should be an ever changing variable. Without creative and imaginative freedom because of older generations ignorance and conditioning, we repeat history and become stagnant. This is why the greatest of minds don't follow the societal norms and what has been set in stone. It leads to repetition. From what i see, this repetition is leading us to self-destruction.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Facts. Wouldn't it be nice to have some real solid facts? I ask this because what can we claim as absolute truth? Something that we know how to measure? But in order to know how to measure you need to think, and in order to think, you perceive. As we know, perception is just perception, not truth. Anything we can perceive and call a "truth" needs a added adjective before it, and that adjective is "relative." Relative Truths are what we have and nothing more. Why should someone be chastised for thinking upon things that are not yet relative?

This denial of "stepping outside of the box" style of thinking is really a fault that a lot of people have. Same as only looking at the litteral meaning of words and sentences, while in the next token say something that has a cognitive meaning in our society that could be perceived as something totally different in another.

Every single thought that occurs in our heads, comes from a pre-perceived input. Our thought is a process and the output is controlled by the inputs.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Just because an invention is commercially successful does not make it a good invention.

I have some quotes about TV for you people. Even though they are criticisms truer words have never been spoken.
The triumph of machine over people. ~Fred Allen, about television

If the television craze continues with the present level of programs, we are destined to have a nation of morons. ~Daniel Marsh, 1950


Television has raised writing to a new low. ~Samuel Goldwyn

Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. ~Edward R. Murrow

Television keeps the masses occupied. What if everyone decided they wanted to make something of their lives? Television keeps the competition down and keeps more criminals off the street. What if everyone decided to go to law school or medical school? It would sure make it tough on the rest of us. ~Jim Urbanovich

It's the menace that everyone loves to hate but can't seem to live without. ~Paddy Chayevsky

Television: A medium - so called because it is neither rare nor well done. ~Ernie Kovacs

All television is educational television. The question is: what is it teaching? ~Nicholas Johnson

Philo began laying out his vision for what television could become. Above all else... television would become the world's greatest teaching tool. Illiteracy would be wiped out. The immediacy of television was the key. As news happened viewers would watch it unfold live; no longer would we have to rely on people interpreting and distorting the news for us. We would be watching sporting events and symphony orchestras. Instead of going to the movies, the movies would come to us. Television would also bring about world peace. If we were able to see people in other countries and learn about our differences, why would there be any misunderstandings? War would be a thing of the past. ~Evan I. Schwartz, The Last Lone Inventor, about Philo T. Farnsworth, the inventor of television

Your cable television is experiencing difficulties. Please do not panic. Resist the temptation to read or talk to loved ones. Do not attempt sexual relations, as years of TV radiation have left your genitals withered and useless. ~Matt Groening, The Simpsons

"But that's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." -Fry


edit on 22-3-2011 by obelisk2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2011 by obelisk2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2011 by obelisk2012 because: had to add one more quote



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
If the things that we ridicule today have any real value then our ridicule will have no effect other than to delay our own progress. progress being debatable



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Seekeye2
 

good work

A nice chunk of quotes , which, without joining in with the 'ridicule/critisize' debate that your post has attracted.
Can i add that these quotes came back and 'bit' the arses of the experts of there times, people that we would of all paid great attention to at there spoken time.
Even the worlds greatest minds can make hugh mistakes, unfortunatly there mistakes will never be forgotten.
It seems we can only believe the science of today, and not hold our breath for the science predicted for tomorrow.

Also, can i make a point to critisize those people who are ridiculeing those that are critisiezing the people that are ridiculeing the critisizers.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
When a new concept "obviously" contradicts known facts, and presents no evidence, perhaps ridicule is justified. But it doesn't hurt for the debunker to explain why the contradiction is so obvious to him. Perhaps his explanation will reveal flaws in his logic, enabling the proponent of the new concept to explain why there is no such contradiction.

I speak from bitter experience. I believe my own model does not contradict known facts; it merely presents known facts (and a few dozen added details) thru a new lens. Actually, I revert to an older lens, namely Euclidean space. Those who are accustomed to viewing the universe thru Minkowski space-time glasses are unable or unwilling to adjust their focus.

I once persuade someone to try on a pair of reading glasses to examine a pretty rock up close. They put on the glasses and immediately took them off, proclaiming these glasses are useless, they make everything blurry. I persuaded him to try again, and to hold the rock about 2 inches from his nose. "Ahhhhh! That's amazing!" Now, if only I could persuade a general relativist to look at subatomic particles in Euclidean space, and not see things "warped" out of shape!

Actually, mainstream scientists already illustrate their ideas in Euclidean space without realizing it. We have all seen drawings of light bending around a black hole; but in Minkowski space-time, light can't bend in a vacuum because the path of light in a vacuum is the definition of a straight line. You can draw Minkowski space-time for a computer, but it doesn't compute in the human visual cortex, so we have to translate it to Euclidean space.

So I get my unfair share of ridicule, and I don't expect that to change in this lifetime. I just hope I can make my ideas know well enough so that another generation can revive them after I am gone. Then my detractors of today may find their names on that list of doubters.
edit on 2011/3/22 by Phractal Phil because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by derst1988
Facts. Wouldn't it be nice to have some real solid facts? I ask this because what can we claim as absolute truth? Something that we know how to measure? But in order to know how to measure you need to think, and in order to think, you perceive. As we know, perception is just perception, not truth. Anything we can perceive and call a "truth" needs a added adjective before it, and that adjective is "relative." Relative Truths are what we have and nothing more. Why should someone be chastised for thinking upon things that are not yet relative?

This denial of "stepping outside of the box" style of thinking is really a fault that a lot of people have. Same as only looking at the litteral meaning of words and sentences, while in the next token say something that has a cognitive meaning in our society that could be perceived as something totally different in another.

Every single thought that occurs in our heads, comes from a pre-perceived input. Our thought is a process and the output is controlled by the inputs.

Excellent way to put it - precisely my thoughts! 'Give Thought A Chance' without it we would still be in the caves - deserves so much respect. CONSTRUCTIVE Critique - YES RIDICULE AND RUDENESS - I say NO!
Guidance and teaching for the New - Progressive Thinking for the Old.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mespen
reply to post by Seekeye2
 

good work

A nice chunk of quotes , which, without joining in with the 'ridicule/critisize' debate that your post has attracted.
Can i add that these quotes came back and 'bit' the arses of the experts of there times, people that we would of all paid great attention to at there spoken time.
Even the worlds greatest minds can make hugh mistakes, unfortunatly there mistakes will never be forgotten.
It seems we can only believe the science of today, and not hold our breath for the science predicted for tomorrow.

Also, can i make a point to critisize those people who are ridiculeing those that are critisiezing the people that are ridiculeing the critisizers.


You are so right. I think a lot of people are missing the whole point and concentrating on the other issues - But hey that's ok.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jvm222
 


don't wait until you're old and grey to realize dumbasses come in all age brackets.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Didn't read all the replies, but this may have been mentioned...

I forget who it was, but somebody around the turn of last century (1900) said that everything that could be invented had been and that it was time to close the patent office...



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Seekeye2
 




When we consider the following we are forced to reconsider the science we believe in today - what is the alternative, I don't know but we certainly need to think about this very carefully. Especially those debunkers who love to jump in so quickly without any evidence whatsoever for their debunking and continual quotes paraphrasing this scientific report or that scientific theory. I can take a good debunker but not a bad one and ATS should make it a rule that if you are going to debunk then provide the evidence or but out.


I don't suspect that you will have noticed or even accept my observation here but... the words quoted just above? Shall I change a few of them and detail just how close your avid devotion sounds like belief in deity or faith?

Seriously, it does read like religious doctrine: God is real because no one can disprove His existence. So, unless you can make me believe you, don't debunk... do even speak.

The Church followed this doctrine for centuries and along the way, smashed to pieces all arguments to the contrary.

If science gets it right, it will hold itself up as a freestanding truth. It will not require any forced acceptance.

This goes for all aspects of life. Truth holds its own.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by Seekeye2
 




When we consider the following we are forced to reconsider the science we believe in today - what is the alternative, I don't know but we certainly need to think about this very carefully. Especially those debunkers who love to jump in so quickly without any evidence whatsoever for their debunking and continual quotes paraphrasing this scientific report or that scientific theory. I can take a good debunker but not a bad one and ATS should make it a rule that if you are going to debunk then provide the evidence or but out.


I don't suspect that you will have noticed or even accept my observation here but... the words quoted just above? Shall I change a few of them and detail just how close your avid devotion sounds like belief in deity or faith?

Seriously, it does read like religious doctrine: God is real because no one can disprove His existence. So, unless you can make me believe you, don't debunk... do even speak.

The Church followed this doctrine for centuries and along the way, smashed to pieces all arguments to the contrary.

If science gets it right, it will hold itself up as a freestanding truth. It will not require any forced acceptance.

This goes for all aspects of life. Truth holds its own.


Truth always wins in the end you are right.
I didn't mention God anywhere perhaps these are your thoughts but sorry your translation is nothing like what I am saying.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekeye2
When we consider the following we are forced to reconsider the science we believe in today - what is the alternative, I don't know but we certainly need to think about this very carefully.


Science may not always be 100% perfect. It's our best explanation of what we see around us, based on observations, and our current technology.

Science is self-correcting over time. It becomes more accurate with more data/observations and better technology. Just because we cant explain everything now, does not mean we should "dump it".

Science is like a journey...

If you go on a journey, from A to B, and 3/4 the way, you take a wrong turn, do you give up and go back to point A to ponder how else you can get to point B without making a journey? I wouldn't... I would learn from my mistake, backtrack a little way to where I made my wrong turn, and try another direction.

If you dump science, you dump logic, since science is based on logic.

What is the alternative? To not be logical!

Without logic there is only superstition, and nonsense.... which gets us nowhere, except perhaps back to the dark ages, where people believed earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and we should go on witch hunts ever so often. Do you really want to go back to that?

There is no real alternative to science.It's all we have, and it's actually very good at explaining what we see around us.

I've noticed that is usually the people who's own (irrational) beliefs clash with science, that propose that we should find an alternative to science. They also (irrationally) expect that science should explain everything instantly/now, which is totally unrealistic, like wishing to be omnipotent. We are not "gods"!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by obelisk2012
Just because an invention is commercially successful does not make it a good invention.

I have some quotes about TV for you people. Even though they are criticisms truer words have never been spoken.
The triumph of machine over people. ~Fred Allen, about television

If the television craze continues with the present level of programs, we are destined to have a nation of morons. ~Daniel Marsh, 1950


Television has raised writing to a new low. ~Samuel Goldwyn

Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. ~Edward R. Murrow

Television keeps the masses occupied. What if everyone decided they wanted to make something of their lives? Television keeps the competition down and keeps more criminals off the street. What if everyone decided to go to law school or medical school? It would sure make it tough on the rest of us. ~Jim Urbanovich

It's the menace that everyone loves to hate but can't seem to live without. ~Paddy Chayevsky

Television: A medium - so called because it is neither rare nor well done. ~Ernie Kovacs

All television is educational television. The question is: what is it teaching? ~Nicholas Johnson

Philo began laying out his vision for what television could become. Above all else... television would become the world's greatest teaching tool. Illiteracy would be wiped out. The immediacy of television was the key. As news happened viewers would watch it unfold live; no longer would we have to rely on people interpreting and distorting the news for us. We would be watching sporting events and symphony orchestras. Instead of going to the movies, the movies would come to us. Television would also bring about world peace. If we were able to see people in other countries and learn about our differences, why would there be any misunderstandings? War would be a thing of the past. ~Evan I. Schwartz, The Last Lone Inventor, about Philo T. Farnsworth, the inventor of television

Your cable television is experiencing difficulties. Please do not panic. Resist the temptation to read or talk to loved ones. Do not attempt sexual relations, as years of TV radiation have left your genitals withered and useless. ~Matt Groening, The Simpsons

"But that's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." -Fry


edit on 22-3-2011 by obelisk2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2011 by obelisk2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2011 by obelisk2012 because: had to add one more quote


Had a good chuckle at these - and they are so true. They forgot to mention how TV causes Obesity




top topics



 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join