reply to post by tomdham
unless you are speaking of verifiable, repetitive testing with similar results as is the scientific method.
well here we go with one example that bugs me:
the process of information gathering in the scientific process requires things like prior findings. now if we follow that trail, all the way back to
the inception of science as a field of inquiry, we find that initially, their findings were tied into many scientific and historical
misunderstandings, mistakes or just flat out errors. it's to be expected that they will make mistakes as they are after all, only in the constant
process of discovery. however this is not how it's presented. it's presented as fact, and if you disagree at any level whatsoever, you have a problem.
it's not that you might have a point. nope. because if your disagreement doesn't support their findings, it's an agenda. it's always an agenda
unless it agrees with their position. haven't you figured that out yet? everyone's got an agenda.
it was suggested (no, make that "Determined") that human beings cannot be created in any fashion other than via sexual congress and vaginal delivery.
then they found evidence that some children were delivered from time to time, throughout history, via crude c-sections. then it was discovered that
inception could take place in a test tube and artificially inseminated into the mother and artificially removed via c-section. then it was discovered
that animals could be cloned. and then the science was available to reach the goal of cloning humans. by the time the dust cleared, their initial
statement that humans couldn't be created via any other fashion than sexual congress and vaginal delivery, turned out to be flat wrong.
if they say it, it's science. if an ancient text says it, it's a fairy tale. why? science doesn't become science once you discover some property of
it, after all, it was there before you found it, in fact, it's been there for a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry long time. just that alone irritates me. you
already have evidence that ancient history has instances, in many ancient texts from all over the planet, that things that were called unscientific,
were called so because science didn't know how to do it AT THE TIME.
it was suggested (no, make that "Determined") that human beings cannot fly in any fashion other than jumping off a building, out of a tree, from a
mountain top or launched in a catapult. the wright brothers say hi.
it was suggested (no, make that "Determined") that we would never be able to travel to other planets, that lifeforms cannot exist in extremely hostile
environments, that entire cities can't be wiped out with a single weapon, that people cannot be resuscitated once dead, that troy never existed, that
ancient greeks couldn't write, and that gilgamesh never existed, and on and on.
these things had to FIRST be determined via scientific inquiry, whether they were scientifically possible or not, before they were labelled fairy
tales. that was 300 years ago. 300 year old science is telling you that science is not possible and you believe them because they taught you to
believe you can't prove it. it's mind boggling logic. of course you can prove it. just go in a maternity ward for a few days or a cloning facility.
go to a freakin' airport or visit kennedy space center. those rockets are going somewhere, and there are people in them.
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL, OH NO, THAT IS NOT ALL.
a dig site is dated. later, an archaeology team comes in and begins to excavate the site. they find bones they find a beer can they find some
forged metal they find a spoon they find a shiny rock with some scratches in it. they pull out the documentation on the date of the site and start
pitcihng out anything that doesn't match the date, as contaminated evidence. they don't put it thru any further tests because they've already decided
that some items would not be found in the geological layer at the date specified. so what was that about "verifiable, repetitive testing"?
now i'm not saying there aren't shysters out there and people not willing to ask enough questions before they believe something, in fact, i'd suggest
this is true for the scientific community as well. so i don't get the high brow, condescending sneer. it's like an exclusive club membership which
pretends it can do no wrong when everyone else knows they are human beings like the rest of us, and perfectly capable of not only making mistakes, but
also ignoring evidence, jumping the gun, providing false evidence to make a case because the alternative was not acceptable, ripping people off by
claiming something was scientifically valid when it wasn't, poisoning people with radiation because it was thought uranium was actually good for you,
and on and on.
sorry to have to be the bearer of bad tidings
edit on 9-2-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)