Science!

mconigol

hal9000 wrote: »

well seeing as it was a thought experiment there was no box no radioactive source or no poison. :rolleyes:

Actually I was wrong, there is a cat isn't there?! We just don't know whether it's dead or alive.

I reckon I could conduct this experiment and after 6 to 8 months of "intensive research" I'd be able to tell...;)

Then again, on the other hand, if the universe happens to be a hologram then there technically isn't any cat and I was right in the first place :eek:

steddyeddy

I can only comment on zoology and biochemistry. Biochemistry is grand its basically what you see is what you get. Zoology on the other hand although progressing is stll to a certain degree stuck in the past and very much operating under the banner of cuvier's rash dictum.

DepecheHead101

I used to think that religion and spirituality was like this fantastical theme park of possibilities whilst science was it's staunch, buttoned down, disgruntled old black and white brother. Of course the more you actually read into it science is far more fascinating than religion. It can be every bit as ... well ... whack. Wormholes, multiverses, extraterrestrial life and it's almost certain probability, relativity, model dependent realitys, dimensions ... this is all full on crazy **** and it's all been fought in the battlefield of science and not 'open minded' spiritual literature.

I still do not believe matter arose first, then conciousness, but I consider myself a man of science rather than of faith. You even take your whackiest metaphysical theories on the nature of reality and most of them science will allow for. You are simply breaking the current model dependent view and altering it to allow for what you have discovered.

Science is not claiming to be THE universe explained if you look at it under that model dependent view. It's just claiming to be the CURRENT best explanation for the CURRENT, apparent universe we find ourselevs in. Rendering it a useful little tool that has given us medecine and other wonders.

Also as a side note I really hate these abstract arguments about people being 'reliant on technology'. So ****ing what? Yeah I am reliant on technology. They are still human endeavours. They fill my life. Watching movies, using the internet, and playing videogames are amongst my most favourite things in life. Those things are not going to implode at some point, leave this world, and leave me a hollow husk of a man with nothing to fill my life. Those arguments just annoy me. They have no relevance and reach no obvious destination. It's like the miserable nitwits who complain about Facebook 'killing real human contact' when in fact young people these days socialize with far more freedom and far greater frequency than they have before.

Pace2008

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

Also as a side note I really hate these abstract arguments about people being 'reliant on technology'. So ****ing what? Yeah I am reliant on technology. They are still human endeavours. They fill my life. Watching movies, using the internet, and playing videogames are amongst my most favourite things in life. Those things are not going to implode at some point, leave this world, and leave me a hollow husk of a man with nothing to fill my life. Those arguments just annoy me. They have no relevance and reach no obvious destination. It's like the miserable nitwits who complain about Facebook 'killing real human contact' when in fact young people these days socialize with far more freedom and far greater frequency than they have before.

Absolutely.

People propagating a return to a so-called “natural” state of being seem to forget that curiosity is one of our most basic human instants. Our desire, our need to understand our world and our ability to do so sets us apart from the rest of the animals.

Science and its application through technology is an extension of this natural curiosity. To forgo its achievements, sweep them under the carpet and go back to foraging for turnips with our hands and chasing animals around with sharp sticks is about the most “unnatural” thing the human race could do.

steddyeddy

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

I used to think that religion and spirituality was like this fantastical theme park of possibilities whilst science was it's staunch, buttoned down, disgruntled old black and white brother. Of course the more you actually read into it science is far more fascinating than religion. It can be every bit as ... well ... whack. Wormholes, multiverses, extraterrestrial life and it's almost certain probability, relativity, model dependent realitys, dimensions ... this is all full on crazy **** and it's all been fought in the battlefield of science and not 'open minded' spiritual literature.

I still do not believe matter arose first, then conciousness, but I consider myself a man of science rather than of faith. You even take your whackiest metaphysical theories on the nature of reality and most of them science will allow for. You are simply breaking the current model dependent view and altering it to allow for what you have discovered.

Science is not claiming to be THE universe explained if you look at it under that model dependent view. It's just claiming to be the CURRENT best explanation for the CURRENT, apparent universe we find ourselevs in. Rendering it a useful little tool that has given us medecine and other wonders.

Also as a side note I really hate these abstract arguments about people being 'reliant on technology'. So ****ing what? Yeah I am reliant on technology. They are still human endeavours. They fill my life. Watching movies, using the internet, and playing videogames are amongst my most favourite things in life. Those things are not going to implode at some point, leave this world, and leave me a hollow husk of a man with nothing to fill my life. Those arguments just annoy me. They have no relevance and reach no obvious destination. It's like the miserable nitwits who complain about Facebook 'killing real human contact' when in fact young people these days socialize with far more freedom and far greater frequency than they have before.

Animals use technology, animals apart from us that is. chimps, birds, bonobos, gorrila ect all use technology such as spears, nests ect. The only difference is we built on our technology.

Ninjedi

mconigol wrote: »

All I know is....Geology Rocks!

Particle physics gives me a hadron...

Opinicus

HayleyLyons1 wrote: »

I could start a thread on any number of topics and predict exactly what the responses will be, including the "witty retorts", the intellectual replies, the snobs and so on.

I guess this whole discussion boards thing is kind of pointless so.

Goodnight Sweet Prince Boards.ie, it was good while it lasted.

tatabubbly

I am since my exam tomorrow is in recombinant technology and oncology

steddyeddy

tatabubbly wrote: »

I am since my exam tomorrow is in recombinant technology and oncology

good look with that

KeithAFC

Science is all around us. Science is something we use every day. I respect science a lot. Doesn't mean i ain't interested in other things, such as politics, the paranormal, football etc.

macquarie

The world would be a much better place to live if religion didn't have a strangehold on it for much of the last 2000 years. So in that sense they are linked and will always appear in the same conversations. Trying to scientifically develop a cure for some disease?? Burn him at the stake!!

Also religion has caused a lot more war, suffering, pain and death throughout history than science/maths/technology.

mconigol

macquarie wrote: »

The world would be a much better place to live if religion didn't have a strangehold on it for much of the last 2000 years. So in that sense they are linked and will always appear in the same conversations. Trying to scientifically develop a cure for some disease?? Burn him at the stake!!

Also religion has caused a lot more war, suffering, pain and death throughout history than science/maths/technology.

well in fairness it's science/maths and technology that are used to create the weapons to fight wars!

macquarie

mconigol wrote: »

well in fairness it's science/maths and technology that are used to create the weapons to fight wars!

They'd find a way to kill regardless of science/tech. E.g. riding horseback fighting with swords and the bow & arrow.

Sea Sharp

If it wasn't for scientific breakthroughs you'd be lying in your own sh1t, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.*


*Paraphrase of a Peep Show quote.

Dave!

macquarie wrote: »

They'd find a way to kill regardless of science/tech. E.g. riding horseback fighting with swords and the bow & arrow.

Isn't that technology too...?

mconigol

macquarie wrote: »

They'd find a way to kill regardless of science/tech. E.g. riding horseback fighting with swords and the bow & arrow.

Dave! wrote: »

Isn't that technology too...?

No. None of that stuff has touchscreens or internet access.

tatabubbly

steddyeddy wrote: »

good look with that

Thanks very much, now if everyone could pray for PCR i'd be all good!

figarofigaro

This is the stupidest thread I've read in a while. Presumably the OP is a troll because anybody that thick surely wouldn't be capable of using a computer.

DepecheHead101

Sea Sharp wrote: »

If it wasn't for scientific breakthroughs you'd be lying in your own sh1t, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.*


*Paraphrase of a Peep Show quote.

... and a little pill with a chicken on it is not going to change that!

strobe

Science raped me, killed my pet dog, and ate my grandmother! When I tried to report it to the police they stole my thoughts! Now I'm afraid if I fall asleep the goblin that lives under my bed will steal my microwave! Gooobadiblipbloblip!!!

Lumen

Sea Sharp wrote: »

If it wasn't for scientific breakthroughs you'd be lying in your own sh1t, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.

Modern humans have always lived a long time, regardless of technology. Life expectancy at birth is more an indicator of infant mortality, which is hugely technology-sensitive.

It would be more accurate to say "If it wasn't for scientific breakthroughs you'd probably have died as a child".

Dudess

WindSock wrote: »

Don't worry about those rational Dawkin **** who go on about logic during the meanwhile dissing illogical things forgetting that creativity and imagination, are just as important as facts. It's not cool to diss science on here. You may as well say you believe in god.

The OP (a guy, Casey) arrives on Boards every so often to tell us, often accompanied by abuse (what dumb "clowns" we are etc) about all these "agendas" which he claims are realities simply because he thinks they are. He gets stroppy and abusive and resorts to trolling simply because people disagree with him - and he can't back himself up. He thinks everything, down to people's turn of phrase, is a conspiracy to conform to something we've apparently been "duped" into. He analyses the most innocuous stuff that most people don't notice, and he absolutely slates people for it.
I wouldn't go thinking he's a reasonable, rational person trying to encourage us to embrace other concepts besides science...

FreudianSlippers

Dudess just came up in here and dropped a knowledge bomb on ya'll.































BOOM!

RichieC

Dudess wrote: »

The OP (a guy, Casey) arrives on Boards every so often to tell us, often accompanied by abuse (what dumb "clowns" we are etc) about all these "agendas" which he claims are realities simply because he thinks they are. He gets stroppy and abusive and resorts to trolling simply because people disagree with him - and he can't back himself up. He thinks everything, down to people's turn of phrase, is a conspiracy to conform to something we've apparently been "duped" into. He analyses the most innocuous stuff that most people don't notice, and he absolutely slates people for it.
I wouldn't go thinking he's a reasonable, rational person trying to encourage us to embrace other concepts besides science...

The hive mind defense, I've seen it many a time!

WindSock

Dudess wrote: »

The OP (a guy, Casey) arrives on Boards every so often to tell us, often accompanied by abuse (what dumb "clowns" we are etc) about all these "agendas" which he claims are realities simply because he thinks they are. He gets stroppy and abusive and resorts to trolling simply because people disagree with him - and he can't back himself up. He thinks everything, down to people's turn of phrase, is a conspiracy to conform to something we've apparently been "duped" into. He analyses the most innocuous stuff that most people don't notice, and he absolutely slates people for it.
I wouldn't go thinking he's a reasonable, rational person trying to encourage us to embrace other concepts besides science...

Yeah, troll or not it just irks me when people go on about science being the ultimate wet dream and everything else is inferior. It's true, I read it in a science book.

Dave!

It irks me when people present it as if the scientific method is 'just another way of looking at things', as though it's on an equal footing with "yeah I just pulled this idea out of my ass, it's the truth." Whether people like it or not, there is something special about analysing things scientifically/methodically/systematically, and testing hypotheses. The proof is in the pudding; science delivers the goods, postmodernism is bullsh*t.

It's meaningless saying "creativity/imagination are just as good as science." They're for different purposes. That's like saying "paintbrushes are just as good as nails" -- for doing what?! Having said that, some imagination is probably required in order to have unique or interesting theories in science.

If you want to learn about how the world actually works, then yes, a scientific approach is required. If you want a nice creative theory that is utterly meaningless, then imagination for imagination's sake will probably get you there. LSD might help too.


And before Jakkass gets in here -- yes, philosophy is good for generating hypotheses. They still need to be tested, though.

WindSock

I said creativity and imagination are just as important as science.Science is logical and measureable, the others are illogical and unmeasureable so they do compare. Even Einstein hisself said imagination in more important than knowledge

strobe

WindSock wrote: »

I said creativity and imagination are just as important as science.Science is logical and measureable, the others are illogical and unmeasureable so they do compare. Even Einstein hisself said imagination in more important than knowledge intelligence

FYP

Who are these people you have met that have said creativity and imagination are unimportant by the way Windsock? I have never heard anyone say that in my life. Could you put one in contact with me, I'd like to scientifically study them being so rare and mythical as they are.

AntiMatter

Dave! wrote: »

If you want to learn about how the world actually works, then yes, a scientific approach is required. If you want a nice creative theory that is utterly meaningless, then imagination for imagination's sake will probably get you there. LSD might help too.

Didn't Francis Crick first envision the DNA double helix while using LSD?

A nice scientific use of the imagination right there.

WindSock

strobe wrote: »

FYP

Who are these people you have met that have said creativity and imagination are unimportant by the way Windsock? I have never heard anyone say that in my life. Could you put one in contact with me, I'd like to scientifically study them being so rare and unique as they are.

I imagined them.



No one has said they diss creativity, I said that by **** all over science and dismissing the illogical unseen that they are doing just that.

strobe

WindSock wrote: »

I imagined them.



No one has said they diss creativity, I said that by **** all over science and dismissing the illogical unseen that they are doing just that.

But you are for some reason implying that by someone liking science a lot they are therefore dissing creativity and imagination. It's like complaining that by someone saying they love cheese they are dismissing Jack Russel Terriers. I think you are drawing inaccurate assertions. Somebody being madly in love with science says nothing whatsoever about there opinion of creativity.

WindSock

strobe wrote: »

But you are for some reason implying that by someone liking science a lot they are therefore dissing creativity and imagination. It's like complaining that by someone saying they love cheese they are dismissing Jack Russel Terriers. I think you are drawing inaccurate assertions. Somebody being madly in love with science says nothing whatsoever about there opinion of creativity.

I didn't make the parallel of creativity an arbitrary one, I already explained that science is logic and imagination illogic. I am not saying you can like one or the other either, I happen to like both too. I was saying that to only believe science and logic are the ultimate driving forces means you are dismissing the illogical ones.

Dwaegon

strobe wrote: »

Science raped me, killed my pet dog, and ate my grandmother! When I tried to report it to the police they stole my thoughts! Now I'm afraid if I fall asleep the goblin that lives under my bed will steal my microwave! Gooobadiblipbloblip!!!

MUST be post of the day!

Iwannahurl

strobe wrote: »

Gooobadiblipbloblip!!!

Dwaegon wrote: »

MUST be post of the day!

Right on.

I wish I'd said that!

Iwannahurl

Dudess wrote: »

The OP (a guy, Casey) arrives on Boards every so often to tell us, often accompanied by abuse (what dumb "clowns" we are etc) about all these "agendas" which he claims are realities simply because he thinks they are. He gets stroppy and abusive and resorts to trolling simply because people disagree with him - and he can't back himself up. He thinks everything, down to people's turn of phrase, is a conspiracy to conform to something we've apparently been "duped" into. He analyses the most innocuous stuff that most people don't notice, and he absolutely slates people for it.
I wouldn't go thinking he's a reasonable, rational person trying to encourage us to embrace other concepts besides science...

I know nothing of the OP or his own agenda.

However, IMO backing your statements with evidence or whatever is not highly valued as an approach throughout Boards.

Is just having strong opinions and being able to articulate them enough?

steddyeddy

WindSock wrote: »

Yeah, troll or not it just irks me when people go on about science being the ultimate wet dream and everything else is inferior. It's true, I read it in a science book.

Windsock I agree one hundred per cent but what a real scientist does isnt read a science book or academic paper and say that must be true because its in a science book.

I had an excellent lecturer who said a lot of what he reads he disagrees with, he encouraged us to do the same and look at his beliefs and disagree with them if we think them unsound.

Every year at least you will read something in a science book that later turns out to be untrue, this happens because someone remembers that a large part of science is "Nullius in verba" take no ones word for it. The way to look at science is to constantly question it. They didnt trust what the science said so they experimented, explored and made the science more accurate.

In zoology there been over 75 examples of megafauna discovered in the last while that had previously been mentioned as a myth in a footnote in biology text books but are now real.

Last year several zoologists discovered a new snub nosed monkey that we were told couldnt exist, not doesnt but couldnt now the next wave of zoologists are learning about it as a real animal.

In biochemistry there have been simular examples so yes of course science is fallable but the idea behind scientific process and investigating and questioning everything is the most valid one we have.

steddyeddy

Imagination goes hand in hand with science.

KeithAFC

Science has been used since the start of mankind. People have questioned things for ever. That is good science. Questioning things. Anyone can be a good scientist.

Irish Guitarist

I hate when people who don't really understand what scientists are talking about believe them because, well, they're scientists. Look at all the people that believe that the universe was created from absolutely nothing, but those same people ridicule anyone that believes in God, Buddha, Allah or whoever. I don't see how believing that a big bang came from nothing and created the universe is any less of a leap of faith than believing in a higher power.

I also hate when scientists feel the need to attack religion for no particular reason. I have a book on astronomy that suddenly says something like "some people actually believe the universe was created by a divine being" as if it was a ridiculous notion. There was absolutely no reason to say this in the book.

I hate the likes of Dawkins too. So what if some people believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. What harm is it doing him? Is he that sanctimonious that he thinks the entire world should believe in everything he says?

WindSock

steddyeddy wrote: »

Imagination goes hand in hand with science.

Yes I agree, interesting post there about how science is always changing. That's why it is hard to put so much faith in the cold hard facts when the proveable is constantly being disproved. But I guess Scientists and Theologians have one thing in common, they are constantly trying to disprove each other :pac:

RichieC

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I hate when people who don't really understand what scientists are talking about believe them because, well, they're scientists. Look at all the people that believe that the universe was created from absolutely nothing, but those same people ridicule anyone that believes in God, Buddha, Allah or whoever. I don't see how believing that a big bang came from nothing and created the universe is any less of a leap of faith than believing in a higher power.

I also hate when scientists feel the need to attack religion for no particular reason. I have a book on astronomy that suddenly says something like "some people actually believe the universe was created by a divine being" as if it was a ridiculous notion. There was absolutely no reason to say this in the book.

I hate the likes of Dawkins too. So what if some people believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. What harm is it doing him? Is he that sanctimonious that he thinks the entire world should believe in everything he says?

Big bang is patently not "something from nothing"

Son Of A Vidic

When science become inflexible, closed, resistant to correction, modification or alternative theories. That is when science it truly undermined and becomes worthless.There are to many 'populist' scientific approaches around today, which unfortunately have followed this dangerous path.

wurzlitzer

We are all scientists, we experiment from the day we are born.

TBH I, like most of the posters here never believe something to be true unless i do a little bit of research of my own, but the only problem with this is can snowball and you end up going down other avenues, which can be time consuming.

TBH as well i do less research in general as i work in science the last thing you want to do is come home and read and watch science, or search the internet looking up random things that you have seen on telly and want to know more about.

I have found though science in general has allowed me to problem solve and experiment in the kitchen etc

anyways always get two opinions about a topic or subject

Agricola

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I don't see how believing that a big bang came from nothing and created the universe is any less of a leap of faith than believing in a higher power.

Its not a case of "believing" that the big bang occured. This theory wasnt handed down to scientists from an old book. Its a position that was arrived at after years of analysis of the evidence at hand. An expanding universe means that at one everything probably originated from a single point.... Im sure you've seen the Discovery channel too!

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I also hate when scientists feel the need to attack religion for no particular reason. I have a book on astronomy that suddenly says something like "some people actually believe the universe was created by a divine being" as if it was a ridiculous notion. There was absolutely no reason to say this in the book.

Ah, there was though!

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I hate the likes of Dawkins too. So what if some people believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. What harm is it doing him? Is he that sanctimonious that he thinks the entire world should believe in everything he says?

You may hate Dawkins, but know that Dawkins loves you!

Dudess

Iwannahurl wrote: »

However, IMO backing your statements with evidence or whatever is not highly valued as an approach throughout Boards.

I don't agree. Sure, there are people who post unsubstantiated stuff, but that can't really be stopped; it doesn't mean it's encouraged though.

Is just having strong opinions and being able to articulate them enough?

Are you asking me or just asking in general? There's a difference between a subjective/speculative opinion and a statement that's claimed to be fact. The former isn't necessarily right or wrong, the latter is either right or wrong and if someone is absolutely certain it's correct, then surely they have cause to back it up? E.g. "In my opinion there is a government agenda to wipe out religion" - well there either is or isn't, opinion doesn't have anything to do with it.

iamstop

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

When science become inflexible, closed, resistant to correction, modification or alternative theories. That is when science it truly undermined and becomes worthless.There are to many 'populist' scientific approaches around today, which unfortunately have followed this dangerous path.

Yeah, it's called religion. I prefer the term cults.

steddyeddy

iamstop wrote: »

Yeah, it's called religion. I prefer the term cults.

Some people in zoology, biochemistry ect operate by dogma

TheGodBen

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I hate when people who don't really understand what scientists are talking about believe them because, well, they're scientists. Look at all the people that believe that the universe was created from absolutely nothing, but those same people ridicule anyone that believes in God, Buddha, Allah or whoever. I don't see how believing that a big bang came from nothing and created the universe is any less of a leap of faith than believing in a higher power.

I hate when people criticise something like the big bang theory without displaying any understanding of it and seeming to think that it was something thought up by a stoned scientist and not something for which there is substantial observable evidence. If you want to show me substantial observable evidence for God, Allah or whoever then be my guest, but I'm assuming that you don't have anything otherwise you'd be a very famous person.

Sure, the big bang theory could be wrong, there are very few absolutes in science, but given the evidence we have at present it is the most likely explanation for the current state of the universe. In 200 years time humanity may find new evidence that invalidates the big bang theory and people then could scoff at us for not realising that the universe began when it was burped out by a giant multi-dimensional duck. But right now there is no evidence of the giant multi-dimensional duck while there is evidence to believe in the big bang theory so it would be silly for me to believe in the duck even if it is the true explanation.

I hate the likes of Dawkins too. So what if some people believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. What harm is it doing him? Is he that sanctimonious that he thinks the entire world should believe in everything he says?

Does it bother me that people are being taught Christianity? Not especially, so long as those people don't try to force their morality on me. But several of them unfortunately do. Does it bother me that some people preach a literal interpretation of the Bible's creation story? It does if those people try to pass off their silly story as science and get it taught to children in science classes where it clearly doesn't belong. That spreads misconceptions about science.

I wish we could live in a world where someone like Dawkins doesn't have to exist, but we don't.

partyatmygaff

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

When science become inflexible, closed, resistant to correction, modification or alternative theories. That is when science it truly undermined and becomes worthless.There are to many 'populist' scientific approaches around today, which unfortunately have followed this dangerous path.

iamstop wrote: »

Yeah, it's called religion. I prefer the term cults.

iamstop you do realise Corvus Maximus is against Religion right? (Or at least he appears to be from posts that i've seen of his). I don't see how you even classify Religion as being a 'populist scientific approach'. He was more than likely referring to the trend of people buying a popular 'science' book and then overnight becoming self-professed experts on the topic. I believe that's the gist of what he meant although I may be wrong.

In any case, there is no conflict between Religion and Science. They are exclusive of one another and neither one can truly cancel out the other.

AlmightyCushion

seamus wrote: »

I stopped believing in gravity years ago.

That Newton is a smart fellow. I can't imagine what the world was like before he invented gravity.