The Science Delusion

[tenzing21]

There's a lot of fail in this thread. The massive use of "appeal to reason" fallaciousness is through the roof.

As for the epistemological questions that have been brought up, I know it's standard leftist-dogma that if "I" don't experience, it didn't occur, but yes 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.

As for closed systems, and singularities, they don't exist. I know all of my tautologies are better than your tautologies, and that's the end of it. If we assume that a singularity, and it's so-called attendant event horizon exist, what do we do with a pair of scissors that are half-way in the event horizon, and half out? does the fulcrum still exist? And what about entangled particles; if one of them was inside the event horizon, the other outside, which set of realities do these particles adhere to?

All of this is still begging the questions, more fallacies, that the universe can create itself, mass is energy, and light is the speed of light, yet not able to go past the center point of the transform before the mass we "see" did, that we use to figure out how the universe got here.

And then we have the observation principle, THE BASIS OF QUANTUM PHYSICS. It's the basis, because it has always been shown to be true. It states, that even 13.6 billion years ago, in order for a particle/potentiality to come down out of it's quantum superposition and dwell in the "real world", an observer is required. Yes, I know that blows the classical version of Einsteins et alia's work out of the water, but it has never been shown to have been violated.

Scientists are held back by their human nature. And any cursory google search will show how you much cheating, lieing, disingenuousness, and fraud is perpetrated in science every day.

[Garnier Fructis]

I know all of my tautologies are better than your tautologies, and that's the end of it.

Well, that kind of ends the conversation doesn't it?

[Zechs-cenarius]

Well, that kind of ends the conversation doesn't it?

This made me laugh so hard I shot a piece of hot dog out of my nose.....OUT OF MY NOSE!

[Begrudge]

Science is as much a delusion as any statement made in this thread or anywhere else. Everything is circumstantial, until we get equations finite enough to see the farthest reaches of the Universe and the smallest of small, nothing will ever be exact, but just know this, with each passing day we are getting closer.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Scientists are held back by their human nature. And any cursory google search will show how you much cheating, lieing, disingenuousness, and fraud is perpetrated in science every day.

Are you proposing something better?

Because if you are, an invisible all knowing creator who some believe to be benevolent and kind and other believe to be wrathful and unforgiving doesn't seem like a better alternative.

You're also saying that scientists are flawed because they are human (and not even all of them are, most hold integrity in their practices), not that science is flawed.

---------- Post added 2013-06-09 at 09:25 PM ----------

Science is as much a delusion as any statement made in this thread or anywhere else. Everything is circumstantial, until we get equations finite enough to see the farthest reaches of the Universe and the smallest of small, nothing will ever be exact, but just know this, with each passing day we are getting closer.

Science is fake because it is never exact enough? Well I suppose we should throw everything we know out the window then.

[Begrudge]

Are you proposing something better?

Because if you are, an invisible all knowing creator who some believe to be benevolent and kind and other believe to be wrathful and unforgiving doesn't seem like a better alternative.

You're also saying that scientists are flawed because they are human (and not even all of them are, most hold integrity in their practices), not that science is flawed.

---------- Post added 2013-06-09 at 09:25 PM ----------



Science is fake because it is never exact enough? Well I suppose we should throw everything we know out the window then.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was saying by the original posters assumption nothing is real. That was all, was just saying you can't say that science is wrong because it has such potential for so many possibilities that you don't understand.

[Begrudge]

Clearly, "you will die if you jump off the Empire State Building" is as much a delusion as "you will start flying if you jump off the Empire State Building". Everything is circumstantial until we stopped being able to come up with bullshit requirements that makes no sense in the real world.

Refer one post up from yours.

[Templar 331]

As for closed systems, and singularities, they don't exist.

Oh really? Care to prove it.

I know all of my tautologies are better than your tautologies, and that's the end of it.

Not a very strong argument for your cause so far.

If we assume that a singularity, and it's so-called attendant event horizon exist, what do we do with a pair of scissors that are half-way in the event horizon, and half out? does the fulcrum still exist? And what about entangled particles; if one of them was inside the event horizon, the other outside, which set of realities do these particles adhere to?

Isn't science fun? All these questions that we can never answer, but you know for a fact. Please, enlighten us. Show us your scientific data to prove or disprove your assumptions.

All of this is still begging the questions, more fallacies, that the universe can create itself, mass is energy, and light is the speed of light, yet not able to go past the center point of the transform before the mass we "see" did, that we use to figure out how the universe got here.

Translation as best as I can figure. We will never see the creation of the universe looking at space because it's spreading out at the speed of light.

And then we have the observation principle,

Oh you mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observe..._%28physics%29

THE BASIS OF QUANTUM PHYSICS. It's the basis, because it has always been shown to be true. It states, that even 13.6 billion years ago, in order for a particle/potentiality to come down out of it's quantum superposition and dwell in the "real world", an observer is required. Yes, I know that blows the classical version of Einsteins et alia's work out of the water, but it has never been shown to have been violated.

Citation please.

Scientists are held back by their human nature. And any cursory google search will show how you much cheating, lieing, disingenuousness, and fraud is perpetrated in science every day.

The only things I've seen so far as cheating, lying, disingenuousness, and fraud is the pseudoscience like the OP has been pushing.

[Begrudge]

Just because time didn't exist before creation doesn't mean creation wasn't around before time. Time didn't exist before you were born, yet it did and you observe this on a daily basis.

[Garnier Fructis]

Just because time didn't exist before creation doesn't mean creation wasn't around before time. Time didn't exist before you were born, yet it did and you observe this on a daily basis.

It most certainly did, unless you're talking about my awareness of it in which case this is worded really badly.

[Begrudge]

It most certainly did, unless you're talking about my awareness of it in which case this is worded really badly.

I said it did in the same sentence how is that worded badly? mere mortal Perception is in the eye of the beholder, just because you perceive something a certain way doesn't mean that is the way it is. As you can see I perceive myself as immortal. Of course how could you perceive that as literal? Awareness is all that a human is. Every thing is on a 50ms delay in our brains and we see in the back of our heads as the images and colors in front of us are processed using past experiences to manipulate a future viable for our offspring to maybe later become a new specie substantially exceeding in every way viable for specie relocation and resource usage to keep our power going for another light and dark. Think about what your reality is, you don't see out of your eyes you see in your brain, the way a brain doesn't see certain wavelengths of light makes us think certain ways about our surroundings.The universe looks much different then we see, imagine what the universe would look like to us and the knowledge we would have if we didn't tune out those wavelengths because they weren't beneficial to see as a specie and we "evolved out of them" wtf am I talking about. Anyway mortal I think I am right therefore I am.

[Garnier Fructis]

I said it did in the same sentence how is that worded badly? mere mortal Perception is in the eye of the beholder, just because you percieve something a certain way doesn't mean that is the way it is. As you can see I perceive myself as immortal.

It's worded badly because it's self contradictory unless one interprets it to mean your perception.

[kendro1200]

Don't forget the Goa'uld! KREE JAFFA!!

Only worthwhile thing in this entire thread.

Yes, many popular scientific ideas are flat out wrong, and that isn't the fault of science, it's the fault of the public, people who take any little thing they don't understand at face value and hang onto it for dear life and never let go. Science isn't a religion, it's not a overlording system trying to dictate life or society like some people have started to cry about over the past handful of years. Science is a method, it's humans thinking critically over events they have observed, it's not entirely math, although math at its bare basics is an abstract form of logic, and helps with critical analysis. Good science will never say its right, it will only say, "this might be how it works" and at every point and turn it will beg to be proven wrong. Good science can be reproduced (although any good experimental scientists will tell you about how frustrating reproducing results can be, particularly if you are recreating an experiment based solely off a journal article Dx ) by other people, it's not an art where everything is a one-shot.
Now there are delusional scientists, particularly in the public eye, they're in the public eye because they'll talk about some moral or social extreme, and it is frustrating to watch them get attention because you want to slap them half of the time. (Every time I see Dr. Tyson talk about religion and how people should act, I want to revoke his speaking privileges, because his stance on religion and science is offensive most of the time. When I see him talk about science and education, as well as how children should be raised/taught I remember why we let him talk, he has the important basics right.)
But yeah, as for Rupert Sheldrake, he reminds me of this tour guide I had once, when going on tours through old Mayan ruins across Central America. He quoted the crackpot specials from the History and Discovery Channel (made specifically to be controversial and thus drive up viewing numbers) as undisputed fact, and he often cherry picked the worst parts as well. We can make anything look bad if we cherry pick the evidence when analyzing it.

[tenzing21]

Oh really? Care to prove it. snip rest, since it's useless drivel

So, you counterpoint basically boils down to nanny-nanny boo-boo? In my very first sentence of the post you quote, I mentioned how the appeal to reason fallacy was out of control in this thread... and then what do you do?

[Garnier Fructis]

So, you counterpoint basically boils down to nanny-nanny boo-boo? In my very first sentence of the post you quote, I mentioned how the appeal to reason fallacy was out of control in this thread... and then what do you do?

Making a claim and refusing to justify it is a wonderful way to convince people. Something else I've been wondering, what is an "appeal to reason fallacy?"

[Adam Jensen]

So, you counterpoint basically boils down to nanny-nanny boo-boo? In my very first sentence of the post you quote, I mentioned how the appeal to reason fallacy was out of control in this thread... and then what do you do?

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.

[zorkuus]

There's a lot of fail in this thread.

Indeed, your post being one of them.

As for the epistemological questions that have been brought up, I know it's standard leftist-dogma that if "I" don't experience, it didn't occur, but yes 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.

Let's say for the sake of argument that it does (it doesn't). What is your point then? Throw science out of the window and go straight to "gawd done it"?

I know all of my tautologies are better than your tautologies, and that's the end of it.

That's the end allright. There's no point in having a discussion with someone who boldly admits he can't and won't change his mind.

[Adam Jensen]

Making a claim and refusing to justify it is a wonderful way to convince people. Something else I've been wondering, what is an "appeal to reason fallacy?"

It's like Kirk Cameron's "circumvent the intellect" statement I guess.

It's not an actual fallacy, I don't think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[zorkuus]

You can't just say "singularities don't exist" and then expect people to just take your word for it.

but

I know all of my tautologies are better than your tautologies, and that's the end of it.

Now I'm confused. Saying so doesn't make it so? Or does it? He says so.

[Herecius]

As for closed systems, and singularities, they don't exist. I know all of my tautologies are better than your tautologies, and that's the end of it. If we assume that a singularity, and it's so-called attendant event horizon exist, what do we do with a pair of scissors that are half-way in the event horizon, and half out? does the fulcrum still exist? And what about entangled particles; if one of them was inside the event horizon, the other outside, which set of realities do these particles adhere to?

Entangled particles, one inside a singularity and one outside, is what is known as Hawking Radiation. It's an actual thing.

As for your hypothetical scissors, they would be torn apart, so I don't really know what the point of your question is. Scissors aren't anymore indestructible than a pair of entangled particles. And finally, here's a black hole actually being observed doing its thing (as close as one can observe a gravitational force so strong that it keeps everything that isn't a powerful radiation burst perpendicular to its plane from escaping it):
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Sp..._a_light_snack It's an observation of a black hole actually drawing off matter from a stellar object.