Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 447
  1. #301
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    写道
    Posts
    13,434
    Kenny's right; lot's of scientists are dicks.

    Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app
    Daniel Ortega eats here.

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    22,462
    And gravity. pffff. That shit is just a conspiracy.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    写道
    Posts
    13,434
    Tell that to chicks with hudge tits.

    Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app
    Daniel Ortega eats here.

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Big Sky/Moonlight Basin
    Posts
    14,417
    Until you drop a brick on your toe.
    "Zee damn fat skis are ruining zee piste !" -Oscar Schevlin

    "Hike up your skirt and grow a dick you fucking crybaby" -what Bunion said to Harry at the top of The Headwaters

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    my own little world
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny Satch View Post
    In a general sense you make a valid point but have you ever debated a Scientist on their well established theories ? That human characteristic kicks in all to often.
    Lots of assholes, sure. That’s hardly an indictment against science. Also, if you debate an expert in one of the sciences with pseudo intellectual bullshit a la “well that’s just like your theory, man” I could see most of them getting annoyed and arrogant. I’m feeling a little arrogant myself over the ongoing misapprehension over what a scientific theory actually is, and I’m not even an expert (just an asshole).
    focus.

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    my own little world
    Posts
    5,838

    Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

    Quote Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post
    Lol. Love Hitchhiker's Guide.


    I believe it would foolish or small-minded to think there wasn't something more beyond what we can "see." I'm not even strictly speaking from a believer's point of view. One would think there are most likely dimensions we're completely unaware of.


    Funny how it still takes a certain "leap of faith" to put much weight into a multiverse and other hypotheses. All fascinating. All quite possible. Still totally unproven. Yet many people with no spiritual faith place some level of belief in such things. I've always felt that if one is to utterly and completely discount the notion of a spiritual world or a world beyond as believed in by most of the varied religions worldwide, then they should also discount the ideas laid out by theoretical physicists if they are to be intellectually consistent. But hey, that's just like my opinion, man.
    A “theory” is a really high bar. It’s obvious you don’t really understand the framework that this stuff is built upon, which is annoying, because your ignorance is willful given how easy it is to find this shit with a quick google search.

    These theories are built upon rigorous mathematical models and are continuously supported through experiment and observation. When an experiment or observation calls a theory into question, the theory falls or is modified. Period. The discipline is explicitly not interested in perpetuating a scientific theory that relies on faith to work.

    Religion runs counter to that. To be blunt, it’s small minded to believe in something specific beyond which we can see. Believing it and allowing for the possibility without believing it are two different things. The first is theism/religion. The second is atheism.
    Last edited by Mustonen; 03-20-2018 at 07:43 AM.
    focus.

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    11,859
    Quote Originally Posted by GeezerSteve View Post
    Assigning a human characteristic (arrogance) to the sciences is just flat silly. A fundamental of science is to continually challenge the current state of knowledge. In stark contrast, religion requires unbending faith in a set of dogmatic beliefs for which there is no evidence.
    Really? There are plenty of examples of arrogance within the scientific community. Even from Einstein himself. He was PISSED when a paper he wrote was rejected in which he said that gravitational radiation was impossible. Howard Robertson was correct, and Einstein later conceded, but my point is that even the greatest of minds are not as infallible as many believe them to be.

    There are human characteristics abound within the sciences. To deny that it akin to people thinking that communism could work if it weren't for that pesky human nature. Unfortunately human nature is the reality that we must contend with and there's not much way around that.

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    11,859
    Quote Originally Posted by GeezerSteve View Post
    Why? Because you deem evidenced-based scientific theory and faith-based myth as equally dubious?
    At times, yes. How about Einstein's idea of a static universe? (he later accepted the expanding universe model) Where was his evidence to begin with? There are loads of examples throughout history of physicists observing (or completely theorizing) a natural phenomenon, and shoving a formula in there to make it work. Sometime's they're spot on as far as we know. Sometimes they are WAYYYYY off base.

    Quote Originally Posted by PNWbrit View Post
    Which religion is it you have in mind that is seeking the proof of it's faith based beliefs.

    And I think you completely missed the point of HHGTG.
    Many seek proof, whether it be through archaeology, physics, and other observations of the natural world and history. Personally, I'm always seeking to challenge my own beliefs. Something it seems most don't want to do, whether religious or atheistic. Most people naturally want to simply find evidence that reinforce their beliefs or the lack thereof. Not contradict them.

    And no, I did not at all miss the point of Hitchhiker's. I don't have to completely subscribe to something to enjoy a fun yarn.

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    17,749
    The current scientific consensus seems to be that there was a big bang in the middle of a vast area of nothing which then created all the stuff you can see and stuff you cannot see.

    The part of this theory that science doesn't want to touch is what started the big bang? So if you wish to believe it was God, a Scotsman, or giant space cow tripping over a lantern, it makes as much sense to me as anything that science has come up with.
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post
    At times, yes. How about Einstein's idea of a static universe? (he later accepted the expanding universe model) Where was his evidence to begin with? There are loads of examples throughout history of physicists observing (or completely theorizing) a natural phenomenon, and shoving a formula in there to make it work. Sometime's they're spot on as far as we know. Sometimes they are WAYYYYY off base.
    You find scientists dubious for posing hypothesis, finding evidence to contrary, then rejecting the hypothesis for a better one based on new evidence and mathematical proofs, and updating models of the universe based on it. Your basis is that those rejected hypothesis were, in retrospect, wrong and without much support... but isn't that why they were challenged and rejected?

    Then in your next breath "Personally, I'm always seeking to challenge my own beliefs."

    Science is a formalized system for challenging hypothesis, evaluating evidence, and building theories. But their having had ideas which they disproved and rejected is as dubious as the unchanging faith based dogma of religion? And your personal method is admirable for doing the same thing as science just in a much less rigorous way on a broader range of subjects?

    I am not trying to antagonize you. I am trying to restate your position in a way where you can more easily "challenge your own beliefs."
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Timberridge View Post
    The part of this theory that science doesn't want to touch is what started the big bang? So if you wish to believe it was God, a Scotsman, or giant space cow tripping over a lantern, it makes as much sense to me as anything that science has come up with.
    Right, and whether we live in the only universe, or we live in a multiverse, or a computer model, or a hologram, or any of an infinite number of equally-likely and equally impossible-to-prove possibilities is completely unknowable. God and science are constructs. Science appears to have the advantage of being "provable" but that just means that the details of this perceived construct seem to hang together.

    But so what? Does the fact that science appears to be getting to the bottom of things mean that it actually is or merely that the details of the construct were carefully arranged before it was set in motion or some other equally-likely possibility? There's no way of knowing. Literally the only thing that we can know with any certainty is that there is not nothing. This was the point of "Cogito ergo sum". The fact that you perceive there to be something does prove that there is something, that all is not void. But that's all it proves.

    Embrace the uncertainty. The fact that we know nothing also means that anything is possible. I personally dig it.

  12. #312
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    11,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    You find scientists dubious for posing hypothesis, finding evidence to contrary, then rejecting the hypothesis for a better one based on new evidence and mathematical proofs, and updating models of the universe based on it.
    Ok, poor choice on my part for quoting Steve's use of the word "dubious." I am NOT saying I find scientists dubious for posing hypotheses. Not in the slightest. What I have a problem with is how so much of the general public views those hypotheses as infallible gospel. So many people mock believers while many of the things they place their own faith in can be shaky at times too. I've had people tell me "God is not real" with such absolution, while at the same time totally buying into theories such as dark matter and multiverses. I'm not saying those things can't be true! They certainly could be. I guess I just find it intellectually inconsistent to utterly discount one thing while buying into another. I can understand the agnostic point of view as they simply are unsure. I find the staunch atheist to be close minded. I used to be totally agnostic. Took many years of sorting through things to come to the conclusions that I did.

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    I-70 West
    Posts
    4,684
    Thread drift, but if you want to geek out on some dark energy research in the coming years...
    http://desi.lbl.gov/

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    10,103
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post
    Ok, poor choice on my part for quoting Steve's use of the word "dubious." I am NOT saying I find scientists dubious for posing hypotheses. Not in the slightest. What I have a problem with is how so much of the general public views those hypotheses as infallible gospel. So many people mock believers while many of the things they place their own faith in can be shaky at times too. I've had people tell me "God is not real" with such absolution, while at the same time totally buying into theories such as dark matter and multiverses. I'm not saying those things can't be true! They certainly could be. I guess I just find it intellectually inconsistent to utterly discount one thing while buying into another. I can understand the agnostic point of view as they simply are unsure. I find the staunch atheist to be close minded. I used to be totally agnostic. Took many years of sorting through things to come to the conclusions that I did.
    Because the scientific theories can be tested and disproven and new theories can be proposed. It is subject to rigor.

    Religion is based on something which cant be tested or disproven. It is subject to faith.

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    my own little world
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post
    Ok, poor choice on my part for quoting Steve's use of the word "dubious." I am NOT saying I find scientists dubious for posing hypotheses. Not in the slightest. What I have a problem with is how so much of the general public views those hypotheses as infallible gospel. So many people mock believers while many of the things they place their own faith in can be shaky at times too. I've had people tell me "God is not real" with such absolution, while at the same time totally buying into theories such as dark matter and multiverses. I'm not saying those things can't be true! They certainly could be. I guess I just find it intellectually inconsistent to utterly discount one thing while buying into another. I can understand the agnostic point of view as they simply are unsure. I find the staunch atheist to be close minded. I used to be totally agnostic. Took many years of sorting through things to come to the conclusions that I did.
    Hypotheses <> theories, but you’re using them interchangeably. Sort through that, at least. Please.
    focus.

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Mayonnaisium
    Posts
    10,467
    A great irony is science shows people of faith generally live longer, happier lives.

    Part of me envies entrenched faith. Makes many things much simpler and much easier.

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,885
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  18. #318
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    11,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustonen View Post
    Hypotheses <> theories, but you’re using them interchangeably. Sort through that, at least. Please.
    Well, I admit I am no theoretical physicist. That's for sure. I don't think any of us dentists are. No need to be on our armchair scientist high horses. My degree had to do with business management, not science. For some reason though, peeps on the interwebz like to elevate themselves to the thinking levels of Hawking et al. After all, we DID watch that one episode of Cosmos and follow NDGT on Twitter, so we must know all, right?!

  19. #319
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Carbondale
    Posts
    12,479
    Scientific fact:
    That movie is older than I would have guessed.
    www.dpsskis.com
    www.point6.com
    formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
    Fukt: a very small amount of snow.

  20. #320
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    33,546
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post

    And no, I did not at all miss the point of Hitchhiker's.
    That's just your belief.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  21. #321
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Mazderati View Post
    A great irony is science shows people of faith generally live longer, happier lives.
    That ignorance is bliss is not news

    Quote Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post
    There are plenty of examples of arrogance within the scientific community.
    There are examples of arrogant people in every endeavor. So what? Most scientists I know are humble and manifest humility. Contrast most religious people I know, who manifest certitude and self-righteousness.

  22. #322
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Mazderati View Post
    A great irony is science shows people of faith generally live longer, happier lives.
    Married people live longer too. And it seems MUCH longer.

  23. #323
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    Married people live longer too. And it seems MUCH longer.
    You're half correct. Married men live longer. Single women live longer.

  24. #324
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    Most women die single.

  25. #325
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    I-70 West
    Posts
    4,684
    Quote Originally Posted by GeezerSteve View Post
    Most scientists I know are humble and manifest humility. Contrast most religious people I know, who manifest certitude and self-righteousness.
    Generalize much?

    I work with a few scientists as customers , smart dudes that I am glad to know. One in particular does some “Interstellar” type research, it’s pretty incredible . Many of the people of faith I know are as selfless, kind and humble as they come.

    I do try to weed out the self righteous assholes, regardless if they are devout, atheist or agnostic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •