Results 301 to 325 of 447
-
03-19-2018, 10:23 PM #301
Kenny's right; lot's of scientists are dicks.
Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile appDaniel Ortega eats here.
-
03-19-2018, 11:52 PM #302
-
03-20-2018, 12:10 AM #303
Tell that to chicks with hudge tits.
Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile appDaniel Ortega eats here.
-
03-20-2018, 12:11 AM #304
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
-
03-20-2018, 06:13 AM #305I drink it up
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Location
- my own little world
- Posts
- 5,838
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.
-
03-20-2018, 06:28 AM #306I drink it up
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Location
- my own little world
- Posts
- 5,838
Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe
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.
-
03-20-2018, 06:28 AM #307
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.
-
03-20-2018, 06:42 AM #308
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.
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.
-
03-20-2018, 07:26 AM #309
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
-
03-20-2018, 07:47 AM #310
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."Originally Posted by blurred
-
03-20-2018, 07:53 AM #311Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
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.
-
03-20-2018, 07:59 AM #312
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.
-
03-20-2018, 08:12 AM #313Rope->Dope
- 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/
-
03-20-2018, 08:12 AM #314
-
03-20-2018, 08:30 AM #315I drink it up
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Location
- my own little world
- Posts
- 5,838
-
03-20-2018, 08:38 AM #316
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.
-
03-20-2018, 08:57 AM #317Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,885
Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
03-20-2018, 09:00 AM #318
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?!
-
03-20-2018, 09:07 AM #319
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.
-
03-20-2018, 09:23 AM #320
-
03-20-2018, 09:34 AM #321
That ignorance is bliss is not news
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.
-
03-20-2018, 09:36 AM #322Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
-
03-20-2018, 09:38 AM #323
-
03-20-2018, 09:50 AM #324Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
Most women die single.
-
03-20-2018, 09:51 AM #325Rope->Dope
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- I-70 West
- Posts
- 4,684
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.
Bookmarks