Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 56 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Steeleagle
If we were to say that Mayans through mathematical and cosmogonic calculation had guesstimated or reached the conclusion that an objet of considerable mass, was to crash agains the Earth and cause a catastrophe, I would be worried. When they say, the Mayans used their third eye and foresee the end of the world, it is just a good laugh.
Of course, how could they know about the course of a comet they could not see and calculate its trajectory with complex mathematics? Silly isn't it.

Must be more to it, because we know what is possible and what isn't. sick


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Some people with very poor understanding of actual science will insist that since we don't know everything that we cannot at least tentatively discount unlikely explanations, in favor of more prosaic explanations, because not being familiar with this particular situation, we cannot, of course, have any basis for determining what is likely and what is unlikely. This is because these people have a comic book understanding of the history of science, what it is and how it works.

It's as productive to argue with one of these persons as it is to argue with a rock about composition of stars.

Anybody seen the PBS special on inside a cult? The one about Michael Travessor? See, this guy predicts the end of the world - and it doesn't happen. His cult members find a way to justify this post facto. And of course they think he's very wise and he thinks he's very wise. He's agonizingly dumb, but the followers are as impervious to reason as, say, fake mediums or reptilian conspiracy theorists. Leon Festinger wrote about this in 1956.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Some people with very poor understanding of actual science will insist that since we don't know everything that we cannot at least tentatively discount unlikely explanations, in favor of more prosaic explanations, because not being familiar with this particular situation, we cannot, of course, have any basis for determining what is likely and what is unlikely. This is because these people have a comic book understanding of the history of science, what it is and how it works.
A comic book understanding of spiritual sciences when applied to the absolute understanding of reality as it is applied to a science yet to be defined is comical.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

It's as productive to argue with one of these persons as it is to argue with a rock about composition of stars.
It's as productive to argue as a basis of education and evolution, as it is to be a rock ignorant of the stars and the rocks connection to the stars. Everything is relative to a perspective of opinion. Everything is connected and alive regardless of opinion.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Anybody seen the PBS special on inside a cult? The one about Michael Travessor? See, this guy predicts the end of the world - and it doesn't happen. His cult members find a way to justify this post facto. And of course they think he's very wise and he thinks he's very wise. He's agonizingly dumb, but the followers are as impervious to reason as, say, fake mediums or reptilian conspiracy theorists. Leon Festinger wrote about this in 1956.

I guess this is like insinuating science has created the means to destroy the world 10 times over without considering the potential of the ignorance that would use it. Poisons that destroy the growth and development of babies which are saturating the groundwater we drink and a few other things we could add to the list. Blind enthusiasm without any conscience or insight to the repercussions of choice.

Not exactly a scientific approach. but then.......


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Everything is connected and alive regardless of opinion."
Assertions are not evidence. "Everything is alive???" This is belief - religion, but you're frankly not educated sufficiently to know you're full of crap.

"Blind enthusiasm without any conscience or insight to the repercussions of choice."
Assertions are not evidence. Real scientists don't advocate blind enthusiasm without conscience or insight - particularly when the "conscience" you and your ilk advocate is imaginary.

"Not exactly a scientific approach. but then......."
As if you had the faintest idea what constitutes a "scientific approach."

"Help me Mr. Wizard, I don't wanna be a genius anymore!!!"
That never was any serious danger of that.

Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 05/20/09 01:41 PM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"Everything is connected and alive regardless of opinion."
Assertions are not evidence. "Everything is alive???" This is belief - religion, but you're frankly not educated sufficiently to know you're full of crap.

Actually was referencing string theory...I can understand if you didn't recognize the inference.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Blind enthusiasm without any conscience or insight to the repercussions of choice."
Assertions are not evidence. Real scientists don't advocate blind enthusiasm without conscience or insight - particularly when the "conscience" you and your ilk advocate is imaginary.

Real scientists write on chat rooms and post on YouTube debating the negatives of false science because he must to maintain his integrity?

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Not exactly a scientific approach. but then......."
As if you had the faintest idea what constitutes a "scientific approach."

Mostly I think you have an idea but then everyone has an idea...I've never met someone who would go to such lengths to try and denigrate someone who won't bend over and openly take a penile implant full of opinion with such a vehemence.. It is entertaining!
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Help me Mr. Wizard, I don't wanna be a genius anymore!!!"
That never was any serious danger of that.
Not if it means meeting your expectations, no.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Steeleagle
When they say, the Mayans used their third eye and foresee the end of the world, it is just a good laugh.

Yes. Any rational thinker making the comment would intend it as a joke. What's hard to believe is that in the year 2009 the flat earth mentality is still extant. You'd think that natural selection might have weeded it out smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: Steeleagle
When they say, the Mayans used their third eye and foresee the end of the world, it is just a good laugh.

Yes. Any rational thinker making the comment would intend it as a joke. What's hard to believe is that in the year 2009 the flat earth mentality is still extant. You'd think that natural selection might have weeded it out smile
Guess that blows the natural selection theory..

Must be something more imaginative than that. wink


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"Everything is connected and alive regardless of opinion."
Assertions are not evidence. "Everything is alive???" This is belief - religion, but you're frankly not educated sufficiently to know you're full of crap.


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Actually was referencing string theory...I can understand if you didn't recognize the inference.


String theory says that everything is alive? Who in string theory says that? Leonard Susskind? Brian Greene?
Or is it some great scientific genius like Deepak Chopra?

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

"Blind enthusiasm without any conscience or insight to the repercussions of choice."


Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Assertions are not evidence. Real scientists don't advocate blind enthusiasm without conscience or insight - particularly when the "conscience" you and your ilk advocate is imaginary.


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Real scientists write on chat rooms and post on YouTube debating the negatives of false science because he must to maintain his integrity?


Not to maintain *his* scientific integrity, but to maintain the integrity of science. The idea of intellectual integrity must be utterly alien to you.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Not exactly a scientific approach. but then......."
As if you had the faintest idea what constitutes a "scientific approach."


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

... I've never met someone who would go to such lengths to try and denigrate someone who won't bend over and openly take a penile implant full of opinion with such a vehemence.


Taking you to task for spouting pompous nonsense to a science group is not "denigrating" you. I heard a joke the other day about not playing chess with chimpanzees - they knock over the pieces, fling poo all over, and then run back to their cohort to scream victory.

You seem to think that any requirement placed on science is an effort to hold back knowledge. Science has been successful for a reason - because it filters the wheat from the chaff, it distinguishing what is knowable (either directly or inferentially) with its methods from what is not. Science is not a world unto itself - there ARE other realms of "knowledge," but they aren't science. It's not because *I* say so - it's because that's what science is.

Now people who want to pretend to do science can spout silly stuff for weeks on end, but that doesn't make what they're saying science - just as they can fling poo and knock the pieces over, but they're not playing chess.


Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 05/21/09 01:11 PM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

String theory says that everything is alive? Who in string theory says that? Leonard Susskind? Brian Greene?
Or is it some great scientific genius like Deepak Chopra?

String theory says all matter is connected including the matter that makes you, you. If we want to qualify any theory that you are alive I am thinking of a reference to a passage from scripture where Jesus said to a would be disciple to let the dead bury the dead. I think the application of this reference will fit in this case.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Not to maintain *his* scientific integrity, but to maintain the integrity of science. The idea of intellectual integrity must be utterly alien to you.

No the idea that one could take something from something that has no integrity is alien to me. And the idea that something of integrity could lose something of itself by some belief or thought followed by its defender is foreign to me.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Taking you to task for spouting pompous nonsense to a science group is not "denigrating" you.

I wasn't speaking of just me, I was thinking of how often you used the line "comic book" understanding to anyone who brought anything here to this forum that you judged as unworthy and how much energy you spend in voicing your disapproval. Some might think you don't have much of a life. By the way I've seen you on Youtube..Seriously you need to change your diet, you don't look healthy.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

You seem to think that any requirement placed on science is an effort to hold back knowledge.

Not at all, my comments are strictly toward you and your beliefs and the lack of any definition of science. I have plenty of respect for science. It's you that I don't feel has much of an intelligent approach to anything that is being said. So far you show no real understanding or experience of Spiritual science other than what you've picked up from judgment of the subject which precedes any objective investigation. Nothing you reference has anything to do with what I Know of spiritual science so if you were to be the example of a scientist I would find you very close minded.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Science has been successful for a reason - because it filters the wheat from the chaff, it distinguishing what is knowable (either directly or inferentially) with its methods from what is not. Science is not a world unto itself - there ARE other realms of "knowledge," but they aren't science. It's not because *I* say so - it's because that's what science is.

Well from what you said before regarding Science as a self correcting entity It stands to reason that to stand behind drawn lines and say we are self correcting is to take a position regardless whether it is a false position until something better comes along. I can appreciate that thought, all superstition is based on that premise.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Now people who want to pretend to do science can spout silly stuff for weeks on end, but that doesn't make what they're saying science - just as they can fling poo and knock the pieces over, but they're not playing chess.

I agree, just as any scientist saying that spiritual science isn't science or that God does not exist because science has no proof does not make it so.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Science is not about God. It's not about superstition. It's not about spirit.

If someone wants to discuss any of the above, they should either do the decent thing and stick to the Not-Quite-Science section, or get out of the forum altogether. Why am I brash about it? Because they are a potential source of public misinformation on a par with the fundamentalist cultists clogging the U.S. education system. The forum administrators, moderators and users all have a responsibility to the younger generation, and to all those who want to understand what science is.

These anti-scientific contributions not only raise the ire of those members genuinely focused on science but must surely also attract kindred 'spirits' and repel desirable prospective members.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Science is not about God. It's not about superstition. It's not about spirit.

These anti-scientific contributions not only raise the ire of those members genuinely focused on science but must surely also attract kindred 'spirits' and repel desirable prospective members.


Science should be about truth and the discovery of truth rather than protecting ones beliefs and dwelling in the ire of dissatisfaction of personal contradictions.

You made a comment regarding "Natural Selection" and God or spirit having no place in Science and Funny fiend makes a claim to this being a scientific community, yet another scientific community has this to say about the above topics.

"In the ultimate analysis" declared the noted British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, the universe can be nothing less than the progressive manifestation of God"
Recent discoveries in may branches of research are gradually dispelling the long held scientific opinion that the upward evolution of life and intelligence that produced human beings was an accidental process. The very existence of living matter is leading many scientists to acknowledge an inherent design in creation. "Careful analysis suggests that even a mildly impressive living molecule is quite unlikely to form randomly," Time magazine December 28, 1992, reported. And in Newsweek, July 19,1993, asked: How do wisps of gas and specks of clay come to life?....Wherever the ingredients of life first evolved, combining them into something fully alive seems madly improbable. Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer [founder of the Institute for Theoretical Astronomy at Cambridge University] once said the event is about as likely as assembling a 747 by sending a whirling tornado into a junkyard."
"One intriguing observation that has bubbled up from physics," the article in Time stated, "is that the universe seems calibrated for life's existence. If the force of gravity were pushed upward a bit, stars would burn out faster, leaving little time for live to evolve on the planets circling them. If the relative masses of protons and neutrons were changed by a hair, stars might never be born, since the hydrogen they eat wouldn't exist. If, at the Big Bang, some basic numbers--the 'initial' conditions--had been jiggled, matter and energy would never have coagulated into galaxies, stars, planets or any other platforms stable enough for life as we know it.
"One little publicized fact is that many, perhaps most, evolutionary biologists now believe that evolution was very likely, given enough time, to create a species with our essential property: an intelligence so great that it becomes aware of itself and starts figuring out how things work. In fact, many biologists have long believed that [given the fundamental structure of the universe] the coming of highly intelligent life was inevitable."
In the Immense Journey (New York: Random House, 1957), biologist Loren Eisley commented on the supposedly blind evolutionary process of "natural selection" (This was back in 1957) and "survival of the fittest" that fashioned complex living creatures from earths raw materials: "Men talk much of matter and energy, of the struggle for existence which molds life. These things exist, it is true; but more delicate, elusive, quicker than fins in water, is the mysterious principle known as 'organization' ,which leaves all other mysteries concerned with life stale and insignificant by comparison. For that without "organization" life does not persist is obvious. Yet, this organization itself is not the product nor selection. Like some dark and passing shadow with matter, it cups out the eyes' small windows or spaces the notes of a meadowlarks song... IF "DEAD" matter has reared up this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be plain to even the most devoted materialist that the matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful powers, and may not impossibly be, as Hardy has suggested, 'but one mask of many worn by the great face behind.'"

Dr. Michio Kaku has a video on string theory in which he follows suit with the idea that matter has a force behind it that cannot be explained but from his intimations it has intelligence and organization. A couple of things he says in his video I disagree with, and I find contradictory.
First, he says, theory explains that something can come from nothing, which is similar to the random theory that a something which has structure and organization could suddenly appear. I think this will be discovered to be an illogical premise for a beginning. Since if we want to imagine that organization is intelligence and the force that is unknown which is involved in organization is built into structure it logically points to he intelligence being within the nothing that gave birth to the something.
Secondly he mentioned the evolution of man from apes. This is also illogical, since the DNA of an ape is not the same as a Human and science fails to recognize these two species as having their own path of emergence.
Thirdly, He posits that when his calculations and the calculations made by others of his kind are solved that will be the end. FINIS! all questions answered no more questions everything will be known. This reminds me of a rumor to a statement that came from an official of the U.S. Patent office that was made back in the early part of the 20th century. "Nothing more can be invented, everything that could or would be invented has already been invented." This was a rumor of course and as such so is any idea that the universe has an end to its experience and discoveries.

Such information as I have provided above exists in the Spiritual sciences. The Nothing that Dr. Kaku refers to is detailed in thousands of books and in the actual documentation of experience as the underlying principal of all thought feeling and action that is self awareness and self discovery. Sometimes it is called consciousness but to the average scientist this arouses an ire due to the need to only apply such a word to the synaptic firing of neurons in the pinky/grey like fleshy meat was resting in the bonelike spherical object called the brain....
Spiritual science documents and tests the human instrument as to its cognitive abilities and to a greatly lesser extent the many civilizations yet to be discovered by present day sciences that have risen and fallen prior to our current scientific discoveries of our planets past.
This is why such mysteries of the Mayan Calendar and the philosophies of such civilizations as the Aztecs, Incas, Maya and even Plato's references to Atlantis and Lemuria have yet to be understood.

Mostly we have camps of belief. Scientists who have their own camps of belief as does religion have its many churches. The reference to protecting this particular community/camp from degradation and to sterilize it of non-believers is mirrored in such actions of control and superstition as was evident in the crusades and the Spanish inquisition. Every camp always maintains they hold the true definition of reality and their truth is the only truth and their weapon is their voice and their evidence. But such a battle is the same battle of a debating team and or a pair of lawyers working for their point of view. Each side gathers it own evidence and each side demands to own and win. The proverbial monkey at the chess board approach.

I find it amazing personally the idea that if something is real it can lost. It can be ignored and misunderstood by many but that never takes anything from someone who knows the Truth.

Science is continually discovering itself, and it is said nothing new is ever discovered, what is cognized is that which already exists in potential of discovery. Yet man insists on owning everything and protecting what it understands for fear of losing it.

Spiritual science has a less superstitious foundation tho it is not impervious to the superstitious ego of man and his limited comprehension of reality as he takes upon himself the words and Ideas of others without the actual experience of what he believes.

The loudest squeaks always come from fear and the feeling of being personally invaded, or simply put superstition.
The simple fact is, if something can be taken away it wasn't real to begin with.



I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

String theory does not say that all things are alive. That's made up stuff you have added. It's not what the theory says.

Science is a social process. Yes. The integrity of science needs to be defended: that's one reason why peer review exists.

It's comic book science, not because I disagree with it, but because it betrays a gross misunderstanding of science. A few years ago I was a judge at a HS science fair. One student's project was to prove that perpetual motion was possible. He got a hand-fan, removed the batteries, and put two magnets on each side of the plastic blades. It didn't move. His conclusion was that perpetual motion was possible, but that the friction was still too great. (In fact, lubricants had been his independent variable, but with consistently poor results.) The lack of understanding of physics, logic, science represented in this young child is scarcely more egregious than represented in some of the posts to this forum.

It would be a different thing if various posters came in and made inquiries. That's not enough. They all think they're going to revolutionize human understanding without actually having done any real homework on the subject.

"Spiritual science" is not science for the same reason that flinging poo is not same as playing chess.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

String theory does not say that all things are alive. That's made up stuff you have added. It's not what the theory says.
It doesn't say matter is dead either. Perhaps we could define"ALIVE"
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Science is a social process. Yes.
So is judgment and superstitious belief as a process of learning and growth. Gotta have contrast.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

The integrity of science needs to be defended: that's one reason why peer review exists.

Churches, Politics and government, cults, all work the same way.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

It's comic book science, not because I disagree with it, but because it betrays a gross misunderstanding of science.

No it only betrays a personal opinion of science that draws a line in front of what it can theoretically substantiate as real. Everything else in the examples you have made according to your knowledge of Spiritual science wont fit behind that line.\
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

A few years ago I was a judge at a HS science fair. One student's project was to prove that perpetual motion was possible. He got a hand-fan, removed the batteries, and put two magnets on each side of the plastic blades. It didn't move. His conclusion was that perpetual motion was possible, but that the friction was still too great. (In fact, lubricants had been his independent variable, but with consistently poor results.) The lack of understanding of physics, logic, science represented in this young child is scarcely more egregious than represented in some of the posts to this forum.

I hope you didn't slam the poor kid for trying like you slam those who come here with their opinion. Poor kid may never get over the trauma...
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

It would be a different thing if various posters came in and made inquiries. That's not enough. They all think they're going to revolutionize human understanding without actually having done any real homework on the subject.

Ya know I had the same thought about you and spiritual science. Instead of having an open mind and asking questions you like to amuse yourself by insinuating it has no scientific application. The shoot first and ask questions later approach. But then anything I have offered regardless of whether you asked or not has been outright denied and ridiculed.
Mostly I find that you define your science without having ever really given a definition. Which means you are in total control of what you want to fit and what you don't want to fit, and you have had nothing to say that is real about spiritual science, just superstitious, witch burning accusations.
The cardinals of the church used to use the same approach when they would hang someone they didn't like.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Spiritual science" is not science for the same reason that flinging poo is not same as playing chess.

Spiritual science is not like the science of your belief and representation, because science as it is represented by you is flinging poo at everything but your own beliefs.
Spiritual science is less dogmatic and church-like and makes use of superstition as a contrast to reality rather than having a need to protect the Übermensch and master race. The Übermensch is always safe for those who want to find it within, and those that don't will....eventually. Such is life. Free will and all that...


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Yes. The integrity of science needs to be defended


Yes , but in this forum it is the integrity of the thread that needs defending more.

why dont you two (TFF and TT) ask if the forum administers can insert a new forum named the

not quite science (Creation or evolution ) forum

simply because neither Creation or evolution is science.

this way all of the other topics wont be strangled by
the evolution vs Creation goings on in this forum.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
on the following movie trailer it is saying that a planet alignment will be the cause of the supposed events of 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVi_2lHBVhQ




I looked on the microsoft worldwide telescope and checked the planets alignment for the entire year of 2012 and 2013 , there is no alignment ! there is a alignment where all the inner planets will be on the same side of the sun in 2014 , but still no inline alignment.

for further information on the WWT see below links
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/may08/05-12WWTQS.mspx
http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/Home.aspx








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Yes. The integrity of science needs to be defended


Yes , but in this forum it is the integrity of the thread that needs defending more.

why dont you two (TFF and TT) ask if the forum administers can insert a new forum named the

not quite science (Creation or evolution ) forum

simply because neither Creation or evolution is science.

this way all of the other topics wont be strangled by
the evolution vs Creation goings on in this forum.





Is "2012 a very deadly year for Earth" A topic of "Science" or projection of "Prophesy"?

Considering the way it was opened under a slightly prophetic premise. Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?
Perhaps a list could be made of what is not included in science so as to sphincter out everything into a neat pile.

Oh and while we're all thinking...Is the discussion of what is or isn't science, science, or is it politics? frown


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
TT
Quote:
Is "2012 a very deadly year for Earth" A topic of "Science" or projection of "Prophesy"?


I personaly dont think that relying on predictions or what is said to be predictions of the mayan calendar made by a civilization of people that used to lop heads off and rip out the hearts of living people to appease their gods so that the sun would rise again is a topic of science.

maybe they just ran out of room for 2012 and decided to wait till then to make a new calendar.

Quote:
Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?


of course , science is data gathering and experimentation
it is the acquisition of knowledge , no two people have the exact same beliefs , although two people can believe in some of the same things you cannot include beliefs , prophesy or any unproven theory into the knowledge we call science.

Quote:
Oh and while we're all thinking...Is the discussion of what is or isn't science, science, or is it politics?


its not science or politics , its a discussion.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?"

The subject of science is already narrow, but you're apparently not aware of what's happened to actual science since the enlightenment. It's not anyone else's responsibility to tell you what is or what is not science. If you actually did homework on the subject before trying to peddle your atrophied religion as science, you might know this.

But religionists typically don't care about this. Much easier to try to bask in the perceived glory of real science.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: paul


I personaly dont think that relying on predictions or what is said to be predictions of the mayan calendar made by a civilization of people that used to lop heads off and rip out the hearts of living people to appease their gods so that the sun would rise again is a topic of science.

maybe they just ran out of room for 2012 and decided to wait till then to make a new calendar.
Or maybe there is evidence that the Maya that crafted the calendar were the predecessors of the ones who used to lop heads off and inhabited their cities, and the calendar is based on mathematical calculations of celestial position and its effects on conscious evolution. But then if you don't know about something the unknown aint science until it becomes known.

Quote:
Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?

Originally Posted By: paul

of course , science is data gathering and experimentation
it is the acquisition of knowledge , no two people have the exact same beliefs , although two people can believe in some of the same things you cannot include beliefs , prophesy or any unproven theory into the knowledge we call science.

But belief does inhibit the ability to discern data according to how data is identified. If you suppose only certain things are real all other suppositions remain unreal until accepted as real.
Take the story of the pap smear for example. George Papanicolaou brought his idea of taking cell samples from the tissues of the cervix to test for cancer. His peers (peer review in action) laughed him out of the medical symposium he was attending. His peers believed him to be delusional. Yet today his pap test is primary for the screening of cervical cancer.
Humans by default subconsciously allow their feelings and beliefs to distract themselves from what is available and standing right in front of them. Because science is narrow it blinds itself of possibility as it tightens the spaces between the walls of the box.

Quote:
Oh and while we're all thinking...Is the discussion of what is or isn't science, science, or is it politics?

Originally Posted By: paul

its not science or politics , its a discussion.

Ah then nothing is a threat in a discussion and there is no need to defend or command, only discuss.

Dare I ask is discussion unscientific?? sick

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?"

The subject of science is already narrow, but you're apparently not aware of what's happened to actual science since the enlightenment. It's not anyone else's responsibility to tell you what is or what is not science.

This is the first time you actually got it right. The Truth never needs defense and it remains the truth regardless of personal beliefs and the wasted energy of defending against forces that do not actually know the truth.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

If you actually did homework on the subject before trying to peddle your atrophied religion as science, you might know this.

You still have not identified what real science is nor have you even remotely touched on anything real about spiritual sciences. So to quote you. "Assertions are not proof."



Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

But religionists typically don't care about this. Much easier to try to bask in the perceived glory of real science.


If we change the word religionists to scientists in the above statement. We have a statement that is relatively equal.
Just for clarification, I don't happen to be a Religionist, tho I do understand religion as it applies to spiritual beliefs, and, that system of beliefs as it also also applies to the relative sciences. The Truth stands independent of the unseen and un-experienced as well as any beliefs.
One would have to rise above the subconscious belief systems to actually experience Truth and that is the foundation for the exploration of spiritual science.
Everything is equal since everything can be traced to the same origin. Trouble is relative science, influenced by the personal ideals and beliefs, can't make it all fit, yet.

By the way have we determined what 'alive' means yet?





I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Ah then nothing is a threat in a discussion and there is no need to defend or command, only discuss."
Then you have nothing to whine about.

"You still have not identified what real science..."
Not my job. You could go do some homework on it, but that would require learning science instead of just spouting spiritual blather and calling it science.

"By the way have we determined what 'alive' means yet?"
I have a working, but imperfect definition. Few scientists would claim their definition is perfect, though. If I followed no logic or asinine logic, I suppose we could infer that it can mean anything you wish.
When one isn't constrained by logic or education words can mean whatever you wish.


Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 05/24/09 07:48 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂş»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5