What is science?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 21:01
VIEWED: 22722
PAGE 4 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
That's like saying an automobile is pathetic five-minutes into its journey, but an hour later, after it has traveled 50 miles, it's more impressive.
Science is a vehicle of discovery. It is not a destination. I have never seen a better vehicle for discovery.
You continue to confuse the failures of men with the failures of science. It is men who periodically stop and say, "This is all that is."
Science never does, any more than a car says, "This is the only road on Earth," or a plane says, "This is the only stretch of sky worth flying."
--Anthony
^This.
Peer review is where the modern definition of science falls on it's collective face. Too many times has a radical new theory or discovery been trotted out and rejected by the establishment.
The greatest scientific minds failed. It took two bicycle builders from Ohio to show us how to fly.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Peer review is where the modern definition of science falls on it's collective face. Too many times has a radical new theory or discovery been trotted out and rejected by the establishment.
Not really, there's scepticism in science, but that's it's strength not it's failing. If there really is anything to a new and radical theory it'll gain traction, like for instance how Einstein's theories of relativity overthrew Newton. Most of the time when a new radical theory is trotted out and rejected by the establishment, it's for good reason.
Of course you'll then get those that really want to believe they've created anti-gravity or perpetual motion in their garage with a car battery and a bicycle pump, start babbling how the scientific "establishment" is conspiratorially trying to stop their genius from changing the whole world. That's not a real problem with Science though, it's a problem with the accusers grasp of reality.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
The greatest scientific minds failed. It took two bicycle builders from Ohio to show us how to fly.
The Wright Brothers didn't invent flight, nor heavier than air flight. The Wright Brothers get most of the press, at least partly because the people who did it before them weren't as canny with marketing, and partly because they weren't American.
Besides, in what way did the "Greatest scientific minds" fail exactly?
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by citizen:
Not really, there's scepticism in science, but that's it's strength not it's failing.
It is important to note, though, the distinction between skepticism and pathological skepticism.
Skepticism is where one demands a higher standard of evidence before arriving at a conclusion.
Pathological skepticism is where no amount or quality of evidence can persuade one to even consider a certain conclusion, usually because of one's adherence to a competing worldview/model. You can see this kind of skepticism in religion, or certain kinds of creationism, for example.
But scientists are not immune to pathological skepticism. It is not the fault of science; those who practice science are only human.
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by citizen:
Not really, there's scepticism in science, but that's it's strength not it's failing.
It is important to note, though, the distinction between skepticism and pathological skepticism.
Skepticism is where one demands a higher standard of evidence before arriving at a conclusion.
Pathological skepticism is where no amount or quality of evidence can persuade one to even consider a certain conclusion, usually because of one's adherence to a competing worldview/model. You can see this kind of skepticism in religion, or certain kinds of creationism, for example.
But scientists are not immune to pathological skepticism. It is not the fault of science; those who practice science are only human.
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
Yeah, but that's why peer review is open to everyone, not just some mythical cabal of the "scientific establishment". It's that that allows "radical" new ideas to gain traction if there's something to them. Invariably if they don't gain traction it's because there's not anything to them, then you have the claims of the conspiratorial cabalistic "establishment" trotted out.
Having said that, there are some things in science that are just so well supported there's not much point in giving things that claim to overthrow them much time. I'd put perpetual motion firmly in that category, because for it to work you have to prove the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, and to prove the laws of thermodynamics are wrong you pretty much have to prove all scientific evidence ever collected isn't only wrong, but never existed in the first place, that science doesn't really exist, and that everything from Aristotle to Hawking has been a delusion dreamed by a blue frog named Gerald.
I.e. the mountain of evidence against perpetual motion is so steep, dismissing it out of hand at this stage isn't pathological scepticism.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Science, much like everything else, is like a penis. Chicks suffer from science envy and the dude scientist have a hard time thinking things through and making good decisions when their science gets too big.
Scientists who's science kinda small (like those flaccid global warming types) are typically over defensive and prone to overcompensating with LARGE numbers.
Some scientist are bi-curious, flirting with religion of all things. Most scientist view these as sluts. You can be a scientist or religious, but not both, unless you know how to keep a secret.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magnets. How do they work?
lol
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Would you say the same for cold fusion? Or homeopathy? Or anti-gravity?
Originally posted by citizen:
I.e. the mountain of evidence against perpetual motion is so steep, dismissing it out of hand at this stage isn't pathological scepticism.
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Would you say the same for cold fusion? Or homeopathy? Or anti-gravity?
Originally posted by citizen:
I.e. the mountain of evidence against perpetual motion is so steep, dismissing it out of hand at this stage isn't pathological scepticism.
Cold Fusion, no, Cold Fusion is perfectly possible, since it's merely fusing atoms at lower temperatures. In fact we know it happens, whether we can do it or not is a different matter.
Anti-Gravity is something I'd be dubious of more or less out of hand at the moment, mainly because the people doing it are nearly exclusively people who should be on prodigious amounts of medication. If there was a source of good quality that provided a paper on the subject I'd listen, but this is such a well trod subject by crazy talkers I'd admit that if just Joe anybody voiced it I'd switch off.
Homoeopathy. Well if a Homoepathist(?) ever tried to actually prove word one of their claims I might just listen out of novelty if nothing else. However there is, frankly, a mountain of evidence showing that it doesn't work, or works no better than a placebo which is precisely the same thing, and absolutely none to say it has any quantifiable effect. What's more most of the time Homoeopathy seems to find the very idea they should prove their claims as insulting and some concept dragged up by a "big pharma conspiracy".
I doubt Homoeopathy will ever be an issue, because I don't think they'll ever even try to provide scientific evidence, they haven't so far.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ROFL. You one funny man.
Originally posted by TheHappySockpuppet:
Some scientist are bi-curious, flirting with religion of all things. Most scientist view these as sluts.
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
