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.

 

Putting the final nail into modern science's coffin

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Of course those theories are fake. It is just not realistic.

*floats in the air while putting the hand thru a wall into the next dimension and holding the entire universe in the palm of my hand*




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Keep dividing by zero, that shows your level of intelligence.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


yeah, and there's more quackery I could've listed:

quantum theory

mufti-dimensional string theory

All theories spiraling out of control because their world is math, not reality.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Is there any type of science you believe or is it all BS and If you do why do you believe that type and not others.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by cardicorona
 


Love the post.
 


I think a distinction needs to be made between the process of science and the industry of science. I believe this is important because most seem to argue from a standpoint that they are one and the same, but they are not.

The process of science (which includes the scientific method) is an option for exploration of the universe in the most objective and communicable way possible. It is timeless, and there is no "nail in the coffin" for such a process.

The industry of science is a business. Like all businesses (including most religions), its purpose is to dominate and control its market. Like with all capitalistic ventures, there is an inevitable rise and fall of said businesses, and the idea is to have market domination for as long as possible.

The issue is that these two things go together a bit like oil and water. But, somewhere along the line, the distinction became blurred. I think this stemmed from the business side of science, much like it did with religion. Personal exploration is discouraged both conceptually and financially. You can only get your answers from "authorized" sources. The current state of the process of science is defended by the products of the business. I.E. "We have the full understanding because we are applying it in a product, or every day life."

Only the adherents of the business of science will claim that our current understanding will stand forever unchanging because it works in the manufactured products we all use.

The adherents of the process of science understand that this is not only self-defeating, but is almost like spitting in the face of the scientific method itself.

There will never be even so much as a coffin or grave for the process of science, as long as people explore the universe for themselves. But, when big business starts to become the sole proprietor of knowledge and information, not only will it have succeeded as a business, but it will kill the scientific method itself.

The problem is, both those who defend and decry the business of science are equally discouraged from exploring it for themselves. Those who are against it, also tend to find themselves discarding the process of science. And those who are for it, tend to blindly believe what is told to them because of bias confirmation as well as financial gating mechanisms.

All of the things stated in the OP are just our current understanding of these things. They are not just subject to change, but are compelled to it by the scientific method itself. I think the greatest scientific triumph will be when individuals are not only enabled to carry out the process themselves, but encouraged to do so. While this is bad for business, it is the nature of the process itself. I would even go so far as to say such growth is the very nature of humanity and perhaps even the universe as a whole.
edit on 24-7-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Behold your babbling Einstein:



What???



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


But notice that not ONE of the so called scientifically literate opposition posters on this thread and others dare bring into the equation that they could be wrong as science is a continuously learning endeavor. It's all: you're wrong, and this is right. Nothing but pure BS dogma.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


All you have to do is read. It's not that hard. I'm tired of holding your hand now. You'll be on my auto ignore list.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


But notice that not ONE of the so called scientifically literate opposition posters on this thread and others dare bring into the equation that they could be wrong as science is a continuously learning endeavor. It's all: you're wrong, and this is right. Nothing but pure BS dogma.


There is an enormous amount of dogma in the scientific industry, which is a bit ironic given that the process of science is meant to negate such bias to the greatest degree possible. I have noticed that when mainly speaking in absolutes, we are almost persuaded by our own speech into feeling we have little left to learn about the topic. And when those "absolutes" are defined by an institution, it becomes an easy means for control. Had to do something about those pesky independent thinkers who werent being controlled by religion anymore.


That said, the amount of dogma present in "alternative science" is just as pervasive. In some cases, much more so because many throw out the baby (scientific method/process) with the bath water (the industry/business).

I cant help but think this is an intentional effect in much the same way that many discard the ideas of someone like Jesus when they throw out the business of christianity. Controlling both the positive and negative response covers a large percentage of a market where you can control the consumer whether or not they actually purchase a product. Then, you just hide the achilles heel of the market domination inside the product itself and... voila! Control of the majority of the applicable market.

I think that mocking a man who built a great step for the process of science (Einstein) can be just as dogmatic as accepting the resultant products of his ideas as gospel.

Perhaps the key is in actually participating in the process of science and growth yourself. The language of math, data, and patterns is the least subjective way we have of discussing our ideas in this arena. There is the possibility a better language will eventually come along (though I cant envision it), but for now, it is the best we have. If you have ideas, and share the results of your exploration in this language, it takes out a lot of the variables introduced by subjectivity.

If you think current understanding is wrong, then explore it yourself and share your findings in the most objective way possible! If you think someones ideas are more accurate than what we currently know to be true, set up experiments, test it for yourself, and share the data. Without this personal exploration, all any of us end up doing is buying into the created market, whether we purchase the product or not.

Do you have any links to your own "product?" And how do you personally limit subjectivity to better facilitate direct communication (which equates to faster growth)?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Very mature

My point is all the other types of science you agree with and they have been proved by the exact same principle as many on your so called list.
So you are cherry picking to fit you nonsensical view of the world.
*******
Thats it Iam out no point talking to people who take the mickey out of Genius old people.
Delusions of grandeur nothing more.
Goodbye.
edit on 24-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


First, this isn't a religious discussion. It's in Science, so stop with the religion crap.

Second, if you want me to play at your game, I'll remind you that the Bible says judge not lest ye be judged. And so if you judge someone else, you are being a hypocrite. And who did Jesus despise above all else? Sinners? No. Hypocrites.


First Good job taking what was wrote to some one else, and acting like it was directed at you. My post was directed at some one else. Second the part that was directed at you, you ignored. So let me use you own words against you here. "You can read right? You can read, Right?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


OP you're being way to rough on Einstein, and outright inconsiderate to a wide range of intelligent ATS members.
I think you may have something against ATS ? But I would like to know why you're picking on a dead guy?
I mean do you have any respect at all? You're com'in off way to arrogant.
And what's that monkey do'in to that cat...................?

Anyway it seems to me you started this thread just to argue with no
real point in mind. I hope you exxplain.
edit on 24-7-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


I pretty much agree with everything you said. The only thing is that the level of deception that is cast over the world in general is horrifying, abhorrent, and any other adjective that describes its sickening nature. The only way for the truth in real science to shine is to first cast away this lifeless and sinister zombie of a corpse before we can move long with understanding the real universe in a truly scientific and Creator-centric way. This may be idealistic on my part, but it's my wish and I'm going to do what I can to facilitate it. Hopefully.

There are other great men doing fabulous work on the EU, and I don't think I can offer anything comparable in my present circumstances where I have a time and resource constraint.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Well it does take a certain intellectual aptitude to ascertain a lot of the points I make, granted. Not everything can be boiled down to the lowest common denominator / Average Joe idiot out there. It's like trying to get a doctorate by just reading a book on your weekend at the beach. Ain't gonna happen.

And if these so-called smart people were so smart, they would've thought before opening their mouths and showing how foolish they were to begin with. I can't help that they weren't smart enough.

There's always smarter fish somewhere. The key to being a smart fish is to pick your battles, and so far I haven't seen a big fish.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Well I liked most of your retort and I say this not to insult you.
But this stuff right here.



Average Joe idiot out there.


Doesn't do anything for you at all.
That's the nicest way I can put it.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Well that's the reality of it. Most people are too concerned about how they come across to others. And while I'm not advocating being rude, I just hate that most people are strangled by trying to gain others' acceptance all the time. Brown nosing at work, kissing up to others to gain their acceptance or approval in the scientific community. Etc.

Truth needs to be king.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


And a King should be a leader, never a tyrant. Carry on.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 

My level of intelligence may not be very high, but it is sufficient to allow me to make a prediction: unless you change your attitude and your approach to participation on ATS, you will no longer be a member of this site come September. I've been here a long time, and I've seen any number of pests come and go. The site owners don't care much for rude, unhelpful bullies.

Have fun while you retain your posting privileges. You won't have them for long.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by SwissMarked
 


You should look up Scientific theory.
Just because something has the word theory in doesn't mean it isn't fact.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.

It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Same with Psychology and its theories on Human behaviour. Keen observations, copious notes, double-blind trials, statistical analysis and predictive capabilities. And yes, the ultimate goal... the explanation-- in this case of what goes on in the human psyche. (Side Note: Wonder why so many consider it a pseudo-science when the process of developing theories is so 'regular' science?

Anyway, yes... the whole idea of scientific theory is to get as close to proven, as is humanly possible. That's the plan, and as soon as we get all the agenda-driven money out of scientific study, we can all feel more confident that all of our best scientists are free to follow along the path to knowledge with genuineness, ingenuity, and freedom from distraction.

Even if that pipe dream came true, getting "close to proven" does not = fact. It equals 'educated guess/assumption.'



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


What do you have against Einstein? The guy was logic incarnate. And he probably would have been proud of your OP, also I dont know if an electric or luminiferous aether but Einstein believed in an Aether. And he admitted him and noone else who has ever lived truly comprehended what light is and how and why it worked.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join