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.

 

The Good Thing About Science

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
(post by franky2 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
No, but you'd better have the right equipment and the right training and the right skills to perform on a team of professional athletes.


Perform what? I was talking about water cooler chat about the game. Isn't that what we're doing here, talking about the professional, public performance of their profession.


If you're walking around and talking as though you're a New York published author when you haven't written a poem or read many books since high school, then no publisher is going to pay attention to your ideas of what literature is and what direction it should take.


I think you'll find focus groups are full of such people, and publishers take them seriously enough.


Scientists examine it all the time, particularly through a type of research called "metastudies."


Metastudies don't examine the verasity of research, they assume the science is of good quality and consolidate the information and try to draw a conclusion based on the evidence as it appears.


Theories get knocked about all the time, and the ones who can overturn a great hypothesis with a better one are celebrated (the asteroid from space that marked the end of the time of dinosaurs is one such (more recently they found that the non-avian dinosaurs died before the comet hit.)


That's not the impression I've gotten, many argue that the great revisions in science required the retirement of an entrenched generation of academics.


Advances like Lasik (which I had 10 years ago) and shoulder surgery (which my husband will have this year) along with their corollary technical advances mean I see better than my grandparents and my husband will not be crippled by arthritis in a few years.

That's science.


Technically that's medicine and engineering but, in any case, I didn't say science was pointless, I meant to suggest it was rather more fallible than Dr Tyson suggests.


And scientists get tired of listening to people who've "read a few websites and are pondering a Great Problem" pontificate.


Scientists seem as eager to pontificate beyond they're expertise as the rest of us. Everyone has an opinion, the trick is discerning who's opinion is worth considering deeply. If they're sick of hearing people pontificate, be smart enough to stop listening.


Before you dismiss Tyson


I didn't dismiss him, he's an entire person, I just dismissed one idea attributed to him, that science is true even if you don't believe it. It's fundamentally unscientific, the assumption is supposed to be that everything we know is probably wrong. Just because crazy religious people push discourse toward fundamentalism isn't a good basis for the rest of us to jump into that particular quagmire. Where to we go from the unquestioned authority of the authoritative.

Physics is stuck, really, really stuck, he's overselling.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirthfull

originally posted by: Byrd
No, but you'd better have the right equipment and the right training and the right skills to perform on a team of professional athletes.


Perform what? I was talking about water cooler chat about the game. Isn't that what we're doing here, talking about the professional, public performance of their profession.


If you're walking around and talking as though you're a New York published author when you haven't written a poem or read many books since high school, then no publisher is going to pay attention to your ideas of what literature is and what direction it should take.


I think you'll find focus groups are full of such people, and publishers take them seriously enough.


Scientists examine it all the time, particularly through a type of research called "metastudies."


Metastudies don't examine the verasity of research, they assume the science is of good quality and consolidate the information and try to draw a conclusion based on the evidence as it appears.


Theories get knocked about all the time, and the ones who can overturn a great hypothesis with a better one are celebrated (the asteroid from space that marked the end of the time of dinosaurs is one such (more recently they found that the non-avian dinosaurs died before the comet hit.)


That's not the impression I've gotten, many argue that the great revisions in science required the retirement of an entrenched generation of academics.


Advances like Lasik (which I had 10 years ago) and shoulder surgery (which my husband will have this year) along with their corollary technical advances mean I see better than my grandparents and my husband will not be crippled by arthritis in a few years.

That's science.


Technically that's medicine and engineering but, in any case, I didn't say science was pointless, I meant to suggest it was rather more fallible than Dr Tyson suggests.


And scientists get tired of listening to people who've "read a few websites and are pondering a Great Problem" pontificate.


Scientists seem as eager to pontificate beyond they're expertise as the rest of us. Everyone has an opinion, the trick is discerning who's opinion is worth considering deeply. If they're sick of hearing people pontificate, be smart enough to stop listening.


Before you dismiss Tyson


I didn't dismiss him, he's an entire person, I just dismissed one idea attributed to him, that science is true even if you don't believe it. It's fundamentally unscientific, the assumption is supposed to be that everything we know is probably wrong. Just because crazy religious people push discourse toward fundamentalism isn't a good basis for the rest of us to jump into that particular quagmire. Where to we go from the unquestioned authority of the authoritative.

Physics is stuck, really, really stuck, he's overselling.


science assumes everything is BS until otherwise demonstrated. once demonstrated to the satisfaction of trained skeptics and investigators (whom we call scientists) the accepted alternative is further examined to determine the specifics of its veracity. the point of skepticism is to act as a filter, not a brick wall.

i have never seen mr tyson wield unquestioned authority. the reason so many people listen to him is precisely because so many have questioned him and been answered professionally and accurately, every time. unless of couse there was no real answer to the question. practically the entire wold has put mr tyson through his paces, and he has emerged tried and true, like so many of his colleagues. people just like you tested them all and failed to best them. they earned their chops the hard way instead of selling america a winning smile and a guarantee.

but go ahead, keep telling us how unreliable science is. then you can take your medicine, watch some television, and retire to your warm electrically heated room with your smart device and sleep peacefully knowing your security system will wake you if something goes awry. the good thing about all those appliances is they dont care who you voted for or who you pray to or even what your name is. you could shout profanities and curse their manufacturers and they will still perform faithfully provided they are appropriately utilized. because science.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Do us all a favor and get an actual degree in science before criticizing it and consequently embarrassing yourself.


Firstly, how do you even know what degrees I may or may not have? Secondly, since when does critiquing a statement through a philosophical approach even require a degree? Thirdly, how have I embarrassed myself? By daring to challenge a statement made by a scientist? Or does it make you feel better to project your own insecurities onto others?


edit on 29/12/2015 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Do us all a favor and get an actual degree in science before criticizing it and consequently embarrassing yourself.




Firstly, how do you even know what degrees I may or may not have? Secondly, since when does critiquing a statement through a philosophical approach even require a degree? Thirdly, how have I embarrassed myself? By daring to challenge a statement made by a scientist? Or does it make you feel better to project your own insecurities onto others?





you're not supposed to challenge science on these boards. it means you're a crazy person who believes in all things mystical.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Do us all a favor and get an actual degree in science before criticizing it and consequently embarrassing yourself.


Firstly, how do you even know what degrees I may or may not have? Secondly, since when does critiquing a statement through a philosophical approach even require a degree? Thirdly, how have I embarrassed myself? By daring to challenge a statement made by a scientist? Or does it make you feel better to project your own insecurities onto others?



From this point forward, I'm not addressing any attacks on my person. Note I never addressed anyone specifically, I made a generalized suggestion because yes, having a specialized education does help when critiquing science. But evidently, people are more interested in circumnavigating that detail.

Science doesn't care about your self image anymore than a hammer cares about your thumb. It's a tool for arriving at the facts, for better or worse.
edit on 29-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Ya well, as you say it is a TOOL, and it has been limited to no end on a great many things.

Seems that a tool is only as good as the people using it, and LIMITING IT.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Awwww, your sooooo cute, I hope the real world isn't too disappointing when you finally reach it. Trained skeptics and investigators indeed, lol.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Science says that the world formed from the effects of a BIg Bang. So essentially evolution occurred as a result of a BIg Bang. So humans exist, due to The Big Bang.

However, science proves it all wrong...

In the beginning there was nothing and nothing evolved to be everything. Yet nothing evolved everything from nothing contradicts 5 known laws of science.

• The proven law of cause and effect
• The proven law of conservation of energy/mass
• The proven law of increasing entropy
• The proven laws of universal information
• The proven law of biogenises



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Good thread guys...on both sides.

I think the op has some merrit. Dealing in absolutes is always dangerous for the truth.

Cant we all just get along ?



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I think Neil DeGrasse worded that sentence poorly.

Science can't be "true".

It is a methodolgy of discovery. And even those
discoveries that are made are not absolute "truth"...
they are ever-changing.

Even Newton's laws of Physics and Einstein's equations
will forever be at the mercy of new information.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
alot of science isnt even proven. so its not true at all. this statement is superfluous.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

When God created Light God saw that it was good. "Good" as in Good Friday or Goodbye means God. Stating that science is "good" is to say that science is a substitute for God. That is clearly not the case because there is a lot in science that is still theory and unknowns, whereas God = God.

Your statement that science is correct is flawed. For example, it has never been proven that time is linear. Nobody has ever bothered to identify why time seems to go faster the older you are. Everybody experiences it, but nobody has provided an adequate theory or proof as to why. Almost everything in science requires linear time to function. Curved time would require a complete start over. Further, it's always been assumed that Newton was correct with mass and gravity. What if all mass exerts a force of time and gravity is the linear one? Again, nothing in science has proven or disproven any of these. So, science, in fact, has very shaky foundations indeed and can hardly be deemed correct or good.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: TzarChasm

Ya well, as you say it is a TOOL, and it has been limited to no end on a great many things.

Seems that a tool is only as good as the people using it, and LIMITING IT.



What you call limiting, others call disciplined.




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join