0 members (),
388
guests, and
4
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
I believe that the time has come for a division of science in order to separate the factual elements of science from the fantasy elements of science.
simply because the fantasy elements of what is called science today is mostly based on outright bullshit.
science has become the blind leading the soon to be blind.
I am calling for actual scientist to secede from what is now referenced as science and forge a true science from the ashes of what todays science has burned to the ground.
I would like to invite any of the readers of this forum including those with goat fantasy fettishes to add their opinions concerning this dire need to restructure science into a true science that is not based on fantasy or influenced by monetary contribution.
a science who's focus is bound to truth not lies that are purchased.
a science that earns trust.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Shouldn't this be posted in NQS, since it doesn't concern actual science?
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Well, Paul are you satisfied? I just gave you the opportunity you were looking for to claim that nobody will pay any attention to your ideas, therefore we are all in a giant conspiracy.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Shouldn't this be posted in NQS, since it doesn't concern actual science? I think your right , Bill. good point , actual science is non existent at the moment so NQS would be the place for this thread. since the thread is in a fantasy science discussion forum (sagg), then of course this thread belongs in the section of the forum considered to be not quite science (NQS). it shouldn't be placed in with all the fantasy science. I should have realized that , sry. R2 please move this thread to the NQS forum so that it will not be tarnished with the fantasy science threads.
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
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
thank you R2 for moving this thread to the NQS forum.
now that that has been accomplished lets move on to better things.
in this universe everything is bound to physical laws. these physical laws were written by men. these physical laws are used as a set of tools to predict how everything in the universe works , and to predict how everything in the universe will react to other things in the universe.
these tools are physics math.
illogic has slipped in and added tools to the tool box that are designed to give false results in order to support a theory or theories.
these tools , are the illogical math found in einstein's theory of relativity SR GR and QM
in physics math supports the theories
einstein's theories could not use physics math because physics math did not , will not , never could support the theories.
the logical thing to do was to implement new illogical math in order to support theories that are illogical.
there is a very large number of people who agree that the use of this illogical math is necessary even though it gives incorrect results.
destruction from within , is the goal.
science / intelligence is the target.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
there is a very large number... Congratulations Paul, it is so rare to see people correctly assign the number of the verb in phrases such as this, that I felt a comment was in order.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
there is a very large number... Congratulations Paul, it is so rare to see people correctly assign the number of the verb in phrases such as this, that I felt a comment was in order. Bill, with the topic in mind, I would like to ask Paul: What "very large number of people" do you have in mind? Does this number include any scientists? What science, or sciences, do you have in mind? Are you a student in a science? Or an expert? What science? ================================ NB: IN THE PERSONAL MESSAGE section, groups of 2-5 can be set up. ================== If you prefer not to go public with your responses, you can send a personal message (PM) to a group of us. My user name is Revlgking. The moderators are: Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer =================== For a detailed paper on the questions: What is science? And how many sciences are there? Go to: http://social-epistemology.com/2012/09/14/gregory-sandstrom-how-many-sciences-are-there/
Last edited by Revlgking; 12/11/12 05:59 PM. Reason: a
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Bill, with the topic in mind, I would like to ask Paul: Bill, with the topic in mind, I would like to ask Paul: What "very large number of people" do you have in mind? Does this number include any scientists? What science, or sciences, do you have in mind? Are you a student in a science? Or an expert? What science? ================================ NB: IN THE PERSONAL MESSAGE section, groups of 2-5 can be set up. ================== If you prefer not to go public with your responses, you can send a personal message (PM) to a group of us. My user name is Revlgking. The moderators are: Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer =================== For a detailed paper on the questions: What is science? And how many sciences are there? Go to: http://social-epistemology.com/2012/09/14/gregory-sandstrom-how-many-sciences-are-there/ I am impressed by your curiosity.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
In a recent post I wrote Bill S, with the topic in mind, I would like to ask Paul: Some questions ... Paul, was it jokingly, or was it with contempt, or scorn, that you responded: I am impressed by your curiosity. And now, seriously and with sincere curiosity, I ask in good humour: How do you choose to impress forum readers? With some answers? Or with silence?
Last edited by Revlgking; 12/12/12 04:49 PM. Reason: Always helpful
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
How do you choose to impress forum readers? With some answers? Or with silence? I like multiple choice questions. but you left out the most important answer. Or do you think that those are personal questions?
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
How do you choose to impress forum readers? With some answers? Or with silence? I like multiple choice questions. but you left out the most important answer. Or do you think that those are personal questions? ================================================ What "very large number of people" do you have in mind? Don't know [.... ] Give a number [.... ] Does this number include any scientists ? Yes [.... ] NO [.... ] What science, or sciences, do you have in mind? Are you a student? Yes [.... ] Or an expert? No [.... ] Do you have science in mind? Yes [.... ] No [..... ] Don't know [..... ] Personal questions ? Which of the above questions are too personal? Give a number [.......] All of them [.......] Do you like to avoid questions about beliefs? Yes [.......] No, I welcome them [.......] ===================== Feel free to ask me any question you feel is fair. I will answer them as best I can. Or I will tell you, frankly, my reasons for not doing so. Sometimes I just do not know the best answer. And I always reserve the right to be WRONG.
Last edited by Revlgking; 12/12/12 06:33 PM. Reason: Always helpful
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Rev
Do you remember several months ago when you PM'ed me asking for my personal information?
did I reply?
I'm not sure why you ask me questions when you know ahead of time that I don't reply.
do you find it odd that I don't reply?
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
SOLUTION? just use your ignore button. Then, unlike TT, I will get the message, clearly. Forums made up of people who know how to have a civilized dialogue of shared ideas are usually successful. Unless you care to respond, for NOW, I will move on to other things, in the spirit of Agape-love and the Golden Rule to you--and to all.
Last edited by Revlgking; 12/12/12 06:50 PM. Reason: Always helpful
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
That is a truely polite, enlightning and dare I say divine post Rev K.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Actually I think that the original question is an interesting one.
I think it would be correct to suggest that quite a lot (note the unscientific vagueness) of that which is regarded as scientific now was once regarded as magic or fantasy. The inexplicable is a breeding ground for story telling and and invention.
I would go further to suggest that the best scientists are those who have retained that sense of wonder and excitement that should in fact accompany discovery and knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
That is a truely polite, enlightning and dare I say divine post Rev K. Thank you, Orac. Now let us explore the topic. In my opinion, there are thee kinds of science or knowledge, and all are of great value. First there are the natural sciences, which I place under the general heading: SOMATOLOGY.1. The natural sciences The natural sciences are those branches of science that seek to elucidate the rules that govern the natural world through scientific methods.
The term "natural science" is used to distinguish the subject from the social sciences, which apply the scientific method to study human behavior and social patterns; the humanities, which use a critical or analytical approach to study the human condition; and the formal sciences such as mathematics and logic, which use an a priori, as opposed to factual methodology to study formal systems.
For details, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science Then there are: 2. The social sciences. Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences I place these under the general heading: PSYCHOLOGY--the child of philosophy. Social science refers to the academic disciplines concerned with society and human behavior.[1] "Social science" is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to anthropology, archaeology, criminology, economics, education, history, linguistics, communication studies, political science, international relations, sociology, human geography, and psychology, and includes elements of other fields as well, such as law, cultural studies, environmental studies, and social work. This brings us to: 3. Spiritual science. Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_scienceAnthroposophy, a philosophy founded by Rudolf Steiner, postulates the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world accessible to direct experience through inner development.
More specifically, it aims to develop faculties of perceptive imagination, inspiration and intuition through cultivating a form of thinking independent of sensory experience, and to present the results thus derived in a manner subject to rational verification.
In its investigations of the spiritual world, anthroposophy aims to attain the precision and clarity attained by the natural sciences in their investigations of the physical world. The philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, like that of Carl Jung, fits in quite nicely with what I call PNEUMATOLOGY & THEOLOGY--scientific studies of the human and divine spirit.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
See there you lost me already Rev K you want to use the word science.
Look at your reference on psychology and says it all it is an academic discipline NOT a SCIENCE. There are certain bits of psychology that are scientific but the whole of psychology is not and does not claim to be a SCIENCE.
Infact psychology has got itself into quite a mess recently when they tried to adopt science principles with things such as Multiple Personality Disorder which science methods say is junk and does not exist. There is now a huge controversy raging about the issue and many views on the issue within psychology.
Similarlly I am going to reject spiritual science along the same grounds because I can't test anything.
To you it is probably semantical but to scientists something is either scientific or it isn't, we don't allow ambiguity and subjectivity.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
I think it would be correct to suggest that quite a lot (note the unscientific vagueness) of that which is regarded as scientific now was once regarded as magic or fantasy. Not only was it "once regarded" as fantasy, I think a lot of it still is. I'm not suggesting that seemingly fantastic ideas should not be explored, I just think it's important to avoid confusing way-out ideas with established facts - if such things can be said to exist.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
I just think it's important to avoid confusing way-out ideas with established facts Well Said
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
It seems that the difficult part might be deciding what is fantasy and what is fact. One man's fact is another man's crack-pottery! Wouldn't life be dull if we all agreed?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|