The Science Delusion

[tenzing21]

You're making an extraordinary claim and you back it up with . . . nothing. The burden of proof is in you. You can't just say "singularities don't exist" and then expect people to just take your word for it.

Oh and for the love of Tyson, stop politicizing your posts with "leftist this" and "leftist that." This has nothing to do with politics.

How about instead, you stop back-seat modding, and acquaint yo'self with the reality of the universe you so carefully try to avoid - "my keyboard, my usage."

I listed FACTS, facts as in provable facts, as in trufax anyone anywhere can observe for theyself. You are the one on some rant, and I imagine you are a leftist, who can't stand to see how the (good gracious, a reference to the OPs idea!? wha....) ideas of the man in question are dismissed out-of-hand by leftists. I'm a little too old (ok, just old, period) to not think for even a second that leftists don't infiltrate whatever they can.

As for appeal to reason - it's a fallacy, where the speaker says something like "hey, look buddy, everybody knows you're smart, you can see I'm right, can't you?? You know the other guy is full of it, huh, donatcha??" something along those lines. It's used a lot by people with little to no(know??) understanding of what they are talking about.

[zorkuus]

I'm a little too old (ok, just old, period) to not think for even a second that leftists don't infiltrate whatever they can.

Take a deep breath, take your pills and calm down.

Infracted. Keep it on the topic.

[Adam Jensen]

How about instead, you stop back-seat modding, and acquaint yo'self with the reality of the universe you so carefully try to avoid - "my keyboard, my usage."

I'm not "back-seat modding," I'm pointing out that you made a claim without backing it up.

I listed FACTS, facts as in provable facts, as in trufax anyone anywhere can observe for theyself.

And one of those facts that you listed was that atoms can't exist because of the electromagnetic force, while completely ignoring the fact that the strong nuclear force exists, thus forgive me but I have a hard time taking you seriously without and evidence.

I'm a little too old (ok, just old, period) to not think for even a second that leftists don't infiltrate whatever they can.

I'm in fact under your bed right now, spying on you so I can report you to the Communists, comrade.

As for appeal to reason is a fallacy, where the speaker says something like "hey, look buddy, everybody knows you're smart, you can see I'm right, can't you?? You know the other guy is full of it, huh, donatcha??" something along those lines. It's used a lot by people with little to no(know??) understanding of what they are talking about.

That is a fallacy, but it's not called "appeal to reason." Appealing to reason would be a good thing. I think you're thinking of appeal to authority.

[tenzing21]

Take a deep breath, take your pills and calm down.

And this is on-topic how??

Why do I have to wade through such useless drivel, when all I want is to discuss the Op's point?

Oh, and appeal to authority, is just that; it's like trying to tell me "Bill Nye the science said so, so even you have to admit it's true..."

What you are doing, over and over, I might add, is saying "look- we all know I'm right, we all know the other guy is way off on this one."

Oh and another thing, where did I say atoms can't exist? Why don't you do a few years research on Neils Bohr and go read up on what he has to say about quantum physics. And the nuclear forces are at odds with the first law magnetism; you can hem and haw all you like, it shan't change that fact.

edit: Yet another thread derailed by leftists

[zorkuus]

And this is on-topic how??

And ranting about leftists is?

Why do I have to wade through such useless drivel, when all I want is to discuss the Op's point?

You don't want to discuss, you just want to make your opinion known and expect people to agree with it or else you call them a leftist or something. You said it yourself: you know you're right, and therefore you're not open to changing your mind. There's no discussion to be had.

What you are doing, over and over, I might add, is saying "look- we all know I'm right, we all know the other guy is way off on this one."

Talk about irony.

[Herecius]

And this is on-topic how??

Why do I have to wade through such useless drivel, when all I want is to discuss the Op's point?

Oh, and appeal to authority, is just that; it's like trying to tell me "Bill Nye the science said so, so even you have to admit it's true..."

What you are doing, over and over, I might add, is saying "look- we all know I'm right, we all know the other guy is way off on this one."

I linked you the story about observation of a black hole in another galaxy so you don't have to take our word for it. The information was corroborated and observed by four different observation projects. Here it is a second time. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Sp..._a_light_snack

Nobody is asking you to appeal to a baseless or uncredible authority figure of any kind. You're free to draw your own conclusions based on the evidence.

[Adam Jensen]

And this is on-topic how??

YOU are the one going off topic by constantly bringing up some paranoid fear of leftists you have.

Oh and another thing, where did I say atoms can't exist? Why don't you do a few years research on Neils Bohr and go read up on what he has to say about quantum physics. And the nuclear forces are at odds with the first law magnetism; you can hem and haw all you like, it shan't change that fact.

You basically implied it by stating that atoms and the electromagnetic force cannot exist together in the same universe. That means that either atoms don't exist or the electromagnetic force does not exist, or that statement is false. The Nuclear force is NOT at odds with electromagnetism, it is 100 times STRONGER than electromagnetism. That is why quarks within protons and protons within nuclei stay together despite electromagnetism.

edit: Yet another thread derailed by leftists

See? There's the ranting about leftists again.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'm quite curious as to what the First Law of Magnetism is.

[Atrea]

What you are doing, over and over, I might add, is saying "look- we all know I'm right, we all know the other guy is way off on this one."

Actually, that's precisely what you're doing here. Verbatim.

You're making claims that are not supported by evidence, and are in fact contrary to actual evidence.
You then make wild claims about 'leftists derailing threads' (as if political leanings have anything to do with agreeing or disagreeing with you), and proceed to accuse others of doing what you are doing yourself.

The way you present your 'facts' is as if you took lessons from Joffrey Baratheon; you claim you're right just because you're you, with no further discussion required.

If you think you're impressing anyone with your poorly-understood regurgitative 'expertise' from Wikipedia University, you're sorely mistaken.

Endus posted earlier about participation in these threads, as not being so much about convincing who you're talking to, but about convincing everyone else that they're wrong. You are not succeeding at this, but you are succeeding at convincing everyone else that you're wrong.

[Gheld]

I'm quite curious as to what the First Law of Magnetism is.

Thou shalt not get gluon my charged particles.

[Endus]

I listed FACTS, facts as in provable facts, as in trufax anyone anywhere can observe for theyself.

Unfounded opinions aren't "facts". You haven't linked "facts".

You are the one on some rant, and I imagine you are a leftist, who can't stand to see how the (good gracious, a reference to the OPs idea!? wha....) ideas of the man in question are dismissed out-of-hand by leftists. I'm a little too old (ok, just old, period) to not think for even a second that leftists don't infiltrate whatever they can.

"Leftists"? This isn't political. It's basic critical thinking. If "critical thinking" is a leftist quality, I'd happily label myself as "leftist", and any decent person would do the same. The alternative is blind obeisance to dogma.

As for appeal to reason - it's a fallacy, where the speaker says something like "hey, look buddy, everybody knows you're smart, you can see I'm right, can't you?? You know the other guy is full of it, huh, donatcha??" something along those lines. It's used a lot by people with little to no(know??) understanding of what they are talking about.

That's either an ad hominem fallacy, where you say "the other guy's a poopyhead, therefore he's wrong", or it's an appeal to authority fallacy, where you say "this other guy is smart/has a Ph.D. so he must be right". There's no such thing as an "appeal to reason fallacy".

And nobody here's done either of those.

It's important to remember that making a personal jab that is not part of your argument in no way harms your argument;
"You're wrong, because you are a poopyhead" is fallacious.
"You're wrong because of X and Y, and being wrong makes you a poopyhead" is not fallacious. It's just rude (and unnecessary; keep it clean, it's treated as flaming, here). The argument is the first clause, the second is window dressing.

And it's also important to remember that appealing to someone's body of work is not an appeal to authority fallacy.
"Hawking's a scientist, therefore he's right" would be a fallacy.
"Hawking's work has withstood every test we've done, and predicted multiple discoveries to boot, therefore he's right" is not an appeal to authority fallacy. It's citing the facts that support the conclusion.

And pointing out that another person doesn't understand basic principles is also not a fallacy. It's a proof of error. If you make a statement that is false as one of your premises, that means your argument is unsound. That's how logic works. If my argument is;
1> All fruit have seeds.
2> Puppies are fruit.
3> Therefore, all puppies have seeds.

Then the argument's logic is valid. The problem is that clause 2 is false. That makes the argument unsound, and therefore untrue. All you need to do is knock out a premise by proving it to be false, and you prove the argument to be unsound and thus worthless. That's how debate functions.

[Garnier Fructis]

Thou shalt not get gluon my charged particles.

Oh god I laughed at this.

[Black Cascade]

1. Nature is mechanical or machine like
2. All matter is unconscious
3. The laws or constants of nature are fixed
4. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same
5. Nature is purposeless
6. Biological heredity is material
7. Memories are stored inside your brain
8. Your mind is inside your head
9. Psychic phenomena like telepathy is not possible
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works

I'll try to adress your 10 points as much as I'm able. Please note that I'm not an expert on these matters and that my perception may be off.

1. If you look at the mechanics of osmosis or the way molecules chemically react in a predictable fashion it's hard not to notice some similarities with machines.
2. If you can show me evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to take a look. Until now I've had no reason to think that matter IS conscious.
3. We have seen no evidence to suggest the laws of physics vary from place to place, or from time to time. I'd like to review the evidence you no doubt possess that would suggest otherwise.
4. No one, to my knowledge, has ever said this. And if they did, they are wrong. We know there is far more energy in the universe than matter. I think you are referring to the 'the total amount of energy in the universe is zero' statement. In that case, I assume you've failed to take into account the enormous amount of negative energy (dark energy) there likely is.
5. What purpose is there? What kind of intellect drives this purpose? And can you show, with empyrical evidence, this intellect exists?
6. Of course it is material. Biology only deals with the material world. You could say there are other hereditary traits, such as psychological or social ones. But those do not play a part in the field of biology.
7. Where else? And can you show any evidence for your assumption. Until scientists have been able to prove the existence of anything that comes close to a soul, I have no reason to think it does exist.
8. Well, I don't think with my penis. I don't know about you, though. On a serious note: same reasoning as point 7.
9. I don't rule out the possibility that somewhere in the future we may possess some technology that can be used for telepathy. However, it is far more likely it will be something like a phone built into the brain. If someone can read my mind, let them prove it. I'll even throw in a hundred euro's if you're right. Houdini already disproved telepathy (or more specific: people who proclaimed to be mediums, i.e. telepaths).
10. The other kind of medicine is the placebo effect. There's no contention that this helps, somewhat. However, trying to cure cancer with waves of mental energy is just asking for death to take you.

[Eroginous]

Exactly. The universe is so vast and complicated, that if we are to choose to believe in God, how can we be so conceited as to think we could understand how such an entity would behave, or what it would want?

Because everything is relative. We have a finite existence as human beings, and if we are going to place the proper importance on certain aspects of that life, we have to make the best decisions we possibly can within the context of that existence. It's not good enough to be told that we have to devote a large portion of our life to a supernatural being so that when we die we can get the ultimate reward. Especially when that same supernatural being makes our lives completely insignificant with his printed word.

[Deleted]

You can't approach science by saying that all we know now might not be true and then consider something possible - even though it scientifically isn't - just because "it might be, since we don't know everything yet." If you can do that, then nothing is real, and nothing has truly been proven. If that's how you think, then you can say shit like "Breathing might actually be the cause of all natural deaths. I mean, I don't know, but it's possible. Perhaps one day we'll prove it." And then you'll start telling everyone not to breathe so they won't die.

[Juvencus]

Something I'd like to add about evolution and nature. Nothing in evolution has a purpose because that would require consciousness (or similar cognitive functions). Evolution is a mechanism that describes the change of the allele frequencies in an individual (or population).

Evolution acts on function. Nothing in evolution involves purpose but because function and purpose in the human society have a similar meaning they are often confused and extended in other areas where the act of purpose is not possible.

Even Natural Selection often described to have a purpose is false as NS is only a mode/type of evolution, only this time is describes an active control/selection of characters based on function at the given time and environment.

In a nutshell Function =/= Purpose

[Deleted]

Ohh another "I didn´t go to school so I have the real answers here is another tinfoil nutjob on youtube for you" guy who has gotten to the bottom of the conspiracy. you should have stayed in school

[crzyman007]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...49678570_n.jpg

Infracted - please stop baiting other posters into arguments

[Speaknoevil]

-snip-

Yet another condescending post with no evidence at all. ^

"You're leveling your argument at a scientist, show me evidence that contradicts fact as seen by the scientific community at large that I can reproduce and see for myself."

I'm still waiting on what I asked for in this post.

[crzyman007]

Yet another condescending post with no evidence at all. ^



I'm still waiting on what I asked for in this post.

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.