The Science Delusion

[Dezerte]

For you, crzyman007:

[Templar 331]

Don't wait for it, you are not gonna get it here. I am not looking to provide proof of anything. If you want proof, find it yourself or let the other so called scientists do it. I'm not a scientist. Just smart enough to see what's wrong with todays science and apparently some are not.

This thread wasn't created to provide people with proof but to rather encourage ppl to raise questions or at the very least think about it. Apparently even thinking is too hard for some.

So far, you've proven that you are not smarter than today's scientists. You've done nothing to disprove them. Instead, you show videos of pseudoscience and pics insulting people. You have done nothing to advance the discussion. Telling people to go find the proof and "wake up" is not a means of enlightenment. It's lazy.

[Speaknoevil]

Don't wait for it, you are not gonna get it here. I am not looking to provide proof of anything. If you want proof, find it yourself or let the other so called scientists do it. I'm not a scientist. Just smart enough to see what's wrong with todays science and apparently some are not.

This thread wasn't created to provide people with proof but to rather encourage ppl to raise questions or at the very least think about it. Apparently even thinking is too hard for some.

• Scientific knowledge changes and grows by the day.
• All of the information I have absorbed in personal research, study, peer-reviewed works, and in my schooling tells me that you're being misleading to make claims without any evidence.
• Science is constantly questioning itself, it's nature is to do so.
• If you don't have any real, verifiable data to point to... bunk.

[Frozen Death Knight]

So a college drop-out sees fit to lecturer REAL scientists on scientific research. On the basis of his studies on the great scientific discipline of "world events", commonly known as "news".

When I read that quote I had a hard time not to facepalm at the massive failure that is his entire education. I honestly don't know if I should feel sorry for him or laugh at how he thinks his own ignorance can in fact be called knowledge. A remarkable case of ego trip.

[MerinPally]

Don't wait for it, you are not gonna get it here. I am not even trying to provide proof of anything. If you want proof, find it yourself or let the other so called scientists do it. I'm not a scientist. Just smart enough to see what's wrong with todays science and raise some questions about it.

This thread wasn't created to provide people with proof but to rather encourage ppl to question or at the very least think but apparently even thinking is too hard for some.

But... the onus of proof is on your shoulders. You're proposing that something is true that isn't what has been proven. We ask for evidence. You don't give it then say "I don't need to, you should have to disprove me!". That's the whole "You can't prove god doesn't exist!!!!" argument just altered a few words, and religious people don't use that one any more because they have far better arguments. Also, they understand burden of proof.

As it stands, evidence says it doesn't exist. You claim otherwise. Prove it or current knowledge stands. If you're going to insist on giving no evidence then just stop suggesting things, it's not playing devils advocate and it's not part of a discussion - it's just stupidity.

[loving]

Most people who have tons of education suffer from cognitive dissonance on some level. Think about it if you were born at the times when scientists(of that time) believed that the earth was flat in order to be considered well educated you would've have to believe it too and I'm pretty sure at that time some of those scientists made some experiments and found some sort of "proof" that the earth was flat but as we know today it is clearly not flat. So there you can see how a whole believe system can be incorrect because of the lack open mindedness.

I think the point of this thread is to open your minds to the consideration that new theories are that at first, just new theories and if anytime someone presents a new theory you shouldn't just discard it because the lack of proof without analyzing it first.

---------- Post added 2013-06-10 at 02:53 PM ----------

But... the onus of proof is on your shoulders. You're proposing that something is true that isn't what has been proven. We ask for evidence. You don't give it then say "I don't need to, you should have to disprove me!". That's the whole "You can't prove god doesn't exist!!!!" argument just altered a few words, and religious people don't use that one any more because they have far better arguments. Also, they understand burden of proof.

As it stands, evidence says it doesn't exist. You claim otherwise. Prove it or current knowledge stands. If you're going to insist on giving no evidence then just stop suggesting things, it's not playing devils advocate and it's not part of a discussion - it's just stupidity.

So the man that thought that man could fly but didn't prove it was stupid? I understand that a great mind made it happen, but probably many people imagined it and presented the "idea" way before that.

[Dezerte]

Most people who have tons of education suffer from cognitive dissonance on some level. Think about it if you were born at the times when scientists(of that time) believed that the earth was flat in order to be considered well educated you would've have to believe it too and I'm pretty sure at that time some of those scientists made some experiments and found some sort of "proof" that the earth was flat but as we know today it is clearly not flat. So there you can see how a whole believe system can be incorrect because of the lack open mindedness.

I think the point of this thread is to open your minds to the consideration that new theories are that at first, just new theories and if anytime someone presents a new theory you shouldn't just discard it because the lack of proof without analyzing it first.

---------- Post added 2013-06-10 at 02:53 PM ----------



So the man that thought that man could fly but didn't prove it was stupid? I understand that a great mind made it happen, but probably many people imagined it and presented the "idea" way before that.

I don't think you know what open-mindedness is. Watch the video I linked a few posts earlier.

Edit: Let me guess, loving is the same person as crzyman007?

[Zluck]

Most people who have tons of education suffer from cognitive dissonance on some level. Think about it if you were born at the times when scientists(of that time) believed that the earth was flat in order to be considered well educated you would've have to believe it too and I'm pretty sure at that time some of those scientists made some experiments and found some sort of "proof" that the earth was flat but as we know today it is clearly not flat. So there you can see how a whole believe system can be incorrect because of the lack open mindedness.

Keep in mind OP is.. gone...

Also the whole scientists in the past believed the earth was flat is a.. lie? Educated people (ie scientists) generally never believed that. (wikipedia has an article on this if you're interested)

[Stir]

Most people who have tons of education suffer from cognitive dissonance on some level. Think about it if you were born at the times when scientists(of that time) believed that the earth was flat in order to be considered well educated you would've have to believe it too and I'm pretty sure at that time some of those scientists made some experiments and found some sort of "proof" that the earth was flat but as we know today it it clearly not flat. So there you can see how a whole believe system can be incorrect because of the lack open mindedness.

I think the point of this thread is to open your minds to the consideration that new theories are that at first, just new theories and if anytime someone presents a new theory you shouldn't just discard it because the lack of proof without analyzing it first.

So the man that thought that man could fly but didn't prove it was stupid? I understand that a great mind made it happen, but probably many people imagined it and presented the "idea" way before that.

Ah, the flat earth myth. Yes; well, it can be solved by pointing out that nobody ever actually believed the earth was flat until incredibly recently (that is: Within the last two-hundred years, and even then, it wasn't exactly popular or main stream). Dear Loving, I would like to point out that the scientific history of the past thousand years is pretty well documented. And while we had the occasional problem with the Swan Tree and mice materializing in conditions of dirty laundry, we can also safely say that nobody took those things very seriously because people understood that the research was bollocks.
That is probably one of the main things that people fail to understand about science. Science does actually like to discover new stuff. And scientists do as well. Generally speaking, of course; there's also those who just want to eat at the end of the month, but by and large, scientists revel in discovering new evidence for new ideas that revolutionize the way they think about the world. You cannot point at scientists as being grumpy and dogmatic for denying new 'evidence' when, in fact, the scientific response to new evidence of actual validity is not entirely unlike a puppy's response to a new chewtoy in wrapping paper.

As for the man that thought humans could fly: Yes, that person was pretty stupid. The man who dreamed of humans that flew, and then went on and made plans that would allow humans to fly, however, was not. See the difference between the two?

[Mihalik]

Most people who have tons of education suffer from cognitive dissonance on some level. Think about it if you were born at the times when scientists(of that time) believed that the earth was flat in order to be considered well educated you would've have to believe it too and I'm pretty sure that at that time some of those scientists made some experiments and found some sort of "proof" that the earth was flat but as we know today it it clearly not flat. So there you can see how a whole believe system can be incorrect because of the lack open mindedness.

I think the point of this thread is to open your minds to the consideration that new theories are that at first, just new theories and if anytime someone presents a new theory you shouldn't just discard it because the lack of proof without analyzing it first.

Please for the love of all that is holy stop spouting stuff you have zero understanding of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...entific_method

The scientific method has been in evolution for somewhere around 4000 years. It took us that long to develop and refine the methodology applied to it. The first dude who made something that could fly, didn't pull that knowledge out of his ass, by questioning the established fact that you can't fly, but did so by building on previous research conducted into aerodynamics, mechanics, engineering and propulsion.

What you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding is that science is essentially the process of asking questions, then providing a workable answer to them, then asking new questions based on your previous results.

You dont' seem to understand what proof is either. There is no proof in pseudoscience. It's always some wild claim, that completly goes against all empirical evidence and established theory, but nobody can ever replicate the proof.

I'll try to break it down to you.

Man who thinks he can fly because he observes birds flying, then proceeds to build wooden wings and jumps off a building fails miserably. But hey birds fly so it must be some anti-gravity force that he failed to replicate, but the proof is there because birds can fly. Pseudoscience.

Guy who observes birds flying, then questions the mechanics behind it, then proceeds to apply multiple scientific fields into the research of powered flight to find a possible applied solution. He then begins a series of controlled experiments where he can improve his idea based on further observation. This produces a working mechanical solution. He flies. He records and documents his results. He publishes his results and possibly patent it. Others analyze his results and proceed to try and replicate it. It works. Others come up with new ideas based on their observations and ideas on how to improve the original idea etc. --This is SCIENCE.

[Speaknoevil]

Think about it if you were born at the times when scientists(of that time) believed that the earth was flat in order to be considered well educated you would've have to believe it too and I'm pretty sure at that time some of those scientists made some experiments and found some sort of "proof" that the earth was flat but as we know today it is clearly not flat.

Logical fallacy, and entirely conjecture. This was also not as widely believed as you imply.

So there you can see how a whole believe system can be incorrect because of the lack open mindedness.

You should watch Dezerte's video.

I think the point of this thread is to open your minds to the consideration that new theories are that at first, just new theories and if anytime someone presents a new theory you shouldn't just discard it because the lack of proof without analyzing it first.

Sorry, you need a basis to even begin making a valid theory(this is a very specific word that you're throwing around, I don't think it means what you think it means*InigoMontoyaVoice*). *Jean-LucFacePalm*

So the man that thought that man could fly but didn't prove it was stupid? I understand that a great mind made it happen, but probably many people imagined it and presented the "idea" way before that.

This is a painfully vague statement and question.

[MerinPally]

So the man that thought that man could fly but didn't prove it was stupid? I understand that a great mind made it happen, but probably many people imagined it and presented the "idea" way before that.

A man who thought we could fly wasn't stupid, a man who said "We can fly wtf why won't you believe me?! I have no way of showing you its possible but I know we can!" definitely was however. The Wright brothers were very intelligent because they thought we could and then made a way to make it happen. Do you not see the difference?

"We can turn invisible. Or close to" <---- claim. We're working on that right now. The person claiming that we can without proof implies it's already done or doable which it isn't, same goes for the flight example. The man who looks at that and finds ways to make it work (the engineers on it currently) are the intelligent ones. Can you not see the difference?

Ps. ban evading is bad.

[Sayl]

...the Universe violates the only classical law we have never seen violated, the 2nd law of thermodynamics; you can hem and haw all you like, but it shan't change.

I have to say, posts like this exemplify why human behavior is so fascinating to me. Here we have an example of someone rather passionately asserting a claim, which, in addition to being trivially wrong, demonstrates that the poster understands very little about cosmology if not science in general, despite all the cocksure bluster. These arguments invoking the second law as a means of trying to dismiss both the Big Bang and evolution originated not from scientists, but creationist apologetics. Surely most participants in these sorts of threads are aware of that, so I wonder who tenzing21 thinks he's fooling?

[Garnier Fructis]

Don't wait for it, you are not gonna get it here. I am not even trying to provide proof of anything. If you want proof, find it yourself or let the other so called scientists do it. I'm not a scientist. Just smart enough to see what's wrong with todays science and raise some questions about it.

This thread wasn't created to provide people with proof but to rather encourage ppl to question or at the very least think but apparently even thinking is too hard for some.

Hell, I get things wrong on here all the time I'm sure, but... this is just the most brilliant display of ignorance I've read in a long time.

[Sayl]

Hell, I get things wrong on here all the time I'm sure, but... this is just the most brilliant display of ignorance I've read in a long time.

Ah, the signature upgrade is finally complete. It's truly a special occasion when someone reaches the auBerg level.

[Speaknoevil]

• Do poking needles into the flesh make your average human feel pain?

• People seem to experience pain based on what their bodies perceive to be damaging events based on my research.

• I hypothesize that myself, Sayl and Garnier Fructis will feel pain when stabbed by a needle.

• *stabs Sayl and Garnier Fructis and in the finger with sterile needle*

• Everyone said "ow" why the **** did you do that.

• Based on the evidence, I conclude that my hypothesis was correct. However, I believe further research is necessary for a more broad understanding of pain as my number of subjects was very limited.
____

This is just an example of what could happen. This is an experiment that any of you could do right now with yourself and two other people that produces verifiable data.

Until you have something that we can prove, or is evident(think about the blank space in between pieces of an incomplete puzzle) then you don't have anything of value(in this medium) to say at all.

[Endus]

Until you have something that we can prove, or is evident(think about the blank space in between pieces of an incomplete puzzle) then you don't have anything of value(in this medium) to say at all.

Or, to put it another way; the reason you don't believe in invisible pink unicorns with magic gumdrop powers is the same reason we don't believe in whatever "theory" you have with zero evidence to support it.

You don't believe in said unicorns because you've never seen one or been given any reason to think they exist. The same is true for your "theories". Everyone's a skeptic, at heart; some people just forgo it for certain specific concepts.

It's okay to have faith in something, despite the lack of evidence, but claiming that it supercedes scientific knowledge or controverts it? No. That's just outright wrong.

[Yvaelle]

Or, to put it another way; the reason you don't believe in invisible pink unicorns with magic gumdrop powers is the same reason we don't believe in whatever "theory" you have with zero evidence to support it.

Why does everyone keep saying they are invisible?! You guys really don't see them?

[Stir]

Why does everyone keep saying they are invisible?! You guys really don't see them?

It's a flaw. Don't hold it against us, please.

[Elim Garak]

It's a flaw. Don't hold it against us, please.

We should kill all the imperfect monkeys who are unable to see Pink Unicorns.