- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ July 20 2010,19:57) Quote (Stu @ July 18 2010,21:41) if it is just me wishing it were real when it is a delusion…
You wish God wasn't real. Does that make your wish a delusion?
You cannot demonstrate that your Imaginary Friend is real, so since the burden of proof is with you it is therefore not me that is suffering the delusion.If you were to say “I have a feeling that there is some master of the universe controlling everything but I'm not willing to claim it outright because there is no material evidence for it” then I would consider you were not under a delusion because some human brains appear to construct such a feeling for their owners, and you would be showing some awareness of the difference between reality and your imagination.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ July 20 2010,20:01) Quote (Stu @ July 18 2010,21:34) and natural selection the robust theory that explains it so well that it is one of the longest-lived theories in all science, not disproved by anyone in 151 years.
A couple of things to point out here.1) Natural Selection was originally used to prove the opposite. That it preserves species by allowing the best features to surface therein giving the species a better chance at survival in the face of change and environmental challenges.
2) Most early scientists believed in God and used science to show how God made things. God has never been disproved to this day.
Just a couple of points to make about your couple of points:1. You can't use a scientific theory to prove something.
2. There is no scientific theory of gods to disprove.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ July 20 2010,19:52) Quote (david @ July 17 2010,17:49) –An Athiest is biased towards WANTING God to be real and changing his beliefs.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.You underestimate the effect that the light can have on those who live in darkness. I know this first-hand. I lived in great darkness for years. At that time, I hated the light. I couldn't stand it. But I changed because I knew I had to. But not all make that choice.
Note the religious platitude:“the effect the light can have on those who live in darkness” etc.
What actually does it mean? “The light” could be anything. I have heard atheists use exactly the same expression to describe their deconversion from christianity, and I have to ask them what they mean too.
The bible is full of such nonsense statements, written to appear deep but actually meaning nothing at all. They expect the listener to construct all the meaning and not call the bluff that there is actually no inherent meaning in the statement.
Rather like a psychic cold reader fishing for “hits” in a wide-eyed and compliant audience.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 20 2010,23:10) Quote (t8 @ July 20 2010,19:52) Quote (david @ July 17 2010,17:49) –An Athiest is biased towards WANTING God to be real and changing his beliefs.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.You underestimate the effect that the light can have on those who live in darkness. I know this first-hand. I lived in great darkness for years. At that time, I hated the light. I couldn't stand it. But I changed because I knew I had to. But not all make that choice.
Note the religious platitude:“the effect the light can have on those who live in darkness” etc.
What actually does it mean? “The light” could be anything. I have heard atheists use exactly the same expression to describe their deconversion from christianity, and I have to ask them what they mean too.
The bible is full of such nonsense statements, written to appear deep but actually meaning nothing at all. They expect the listener to construct all the meaning and not call the bluff that there is actually no inherent meaning in the statement.
Rather like a psychic cold reader fishing for “hits” in a wide-eyed and compliant audience.
Stuart
Greetings Stu…It is funny that you make reference to” Physic cold reader fishing for hits”….I sense a degree scepticism in your judgement….If you find yourself questioning a science that is based on theory than why not the validy of theory it self….Theory ( I think,maybe,it is possible and so on) theory not fact….Theory of the universe is based on a cosmic explosion…Show me one explosion that could create so much order….show me the transitional human speciment..Quote (theodorej @ July 21 2010,01:08) Quote (Stu @ July 20 2010,23:10) Quote (t8 @ July 20 2010,19:52) Quote (david @ July 17 2010,17:49) –An Athiest is biased towards WANTING God to be real and changing his beliefs.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.You underestimate the effect that the light can have on those who live in darkness. I know this first-hand. I lived in great darkness for years. At that time, I hated the light. I couldn't stand it. But I changed because I knew I had to. But not all make that choice.
Note the religious platitude:“the effect the light can have on those who live in darkness” etc.
What actually does it mean? “The light” could be anything. I have heard atheists use exactly the same expression to describe their deconversion from christianity, and I have to ask them what they mean too.
The bible is full of such nonsense statements, written to appear deep but actually meaning nothing at all. They expect the listener to construct all the meaning and not call the bluff that there is actually no inherent meaning in the statement.
Rather like a psychic cold reader fishing for “hits” in a wide-eyed and compliant audience.
Stuart
Greetings Stu…It is funny that you make reference to” Physic cold reader fishing for hits”….I sense a degree scepticism in your judgement….If you find yourself questioning a science that is based on theory than why not the validy of theory it self….Theory ( I think,maybe,it is possible and so on) theory not fact….Theory of the universe is based on a cosmic explosion…Show me one explosion that could create so much order….show me the transitional human speciment..
Well there are a lot of ideas all mixed up in there theodorej. Let's tease them out:Science is not “based on theory” but rather makes theories that explain collections of related facts. The theory is only as good as the next piece of relevant fact that comes along.
I cannot show you the kind of explosion that the Big Bang was, because it is not the kind of explosion with which we are familiar. It was not an explosion of something into space, but rather an explosion of the dimensions of space and time.
Except the species that have gone to extinction or that will go extinct, there is no species that is not a transitional form. We are transitional forms on the road to whatever new version we become: in the case of humans that new form will not actually be named as a distinct species for hundred of thousands of years after it emerges.
Here is homo erectus, a recent ancestor species of human and a “transitional form”, like everything else is:
Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ July 22 2010,05:55) Hey stu, saw that guy in town last week.
Just goes to show you how little change has occurred in the past million years in humans then.Stuart
Stu,
How do you prove that a fosil was actually ever anything different than a fosil. I cannot think of a way since any proposition you have depends one one or more conjectures that you take on faith as actually being true.
If you assume that God is the Clockmaker then all you have to do is point to the clocks that he made and human beings are rather complicated machines that we with our level of technology have not been able to make an equivilent machine. In fact we borrow from the Clockmaker's designs to change other machines that the Clockmaker made.
I do realize my own proposition depends on an assumption and you seldom can get around using such is logical reasoning.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Edited to correct spelling and put a comment to avoid a future argument I consider useless.
kerwin
Quote How do you prove that a fosil was actually ever anything different than a fosil. I cannot think of a way since any proposition you have depends one one or more conjectures that you take on faith as actually being true.
Are you questioning whether fossils are actually caused by living things, or are pieces of them? Are you suggesting that it is not possible to know much or anything about the living things that left them? I was surprised when I found out exactly how much information can be gained from a single tooth or condyle, for example. You have to really know your patterns of zoology or botany, and I am neither a botanist nor a zoologist so I hesitate to comment on exactly the extent to which a species can be reconstructed from a small fragment. This is not trivial guesswork they are doing!Quote If you assume that God is the Clockmaker then all you have to do is point to the clocks that he made and human beings are rather complicated machines that we with our level of technology have not been able to make an equivilent machine. In fact we borrow from the Clockmaker's designs to change other machines that the Clockmaker made. I do realize my own proposition depends on an assumption and you seldom can get around using such is logical reasoning.
Indeed it is your assertion and nothing else on which you base your clockmaker idea. Why add that to the other assumptions that you have no choice but to make? Actually there is nothing that is explained by it, unless you actually have an evidence-based, falsifiable theory of divine creation? Do you? Otherwise there is no content there that goes “because of A therefore B”, it is all just assertions and descriptions.In the unlikely event there is a “clockmaker” then it is not the one described in Judeo-christian mythology, and especially it is not the one believed in by Anselm: while at the moment we create bacterial cells using the conventions and mechanisms of DNA-derived protein synthesis and are not yet able to come up with an entirely new biochemical system, any first-year engineering student should be able to design a better human back or prostate gland than the one you allege was made by your clockmaker. It is a great biochemist but a lousy engineer.
Of course all of these observations are completely consistent with evolution by natural selection. On the cellular level the biochemistry has had 4 billion years of descent with modification during which countless accidental biochemical discoveries have been incorporated , but the mechanical aspects of being a human have only had a few million years of adaptation. Natural selection is not a designer, more a cobbler together of things that will do the job, even a makeshift one, from spare parts. Your body and mine are exactly like that, compromises with their inherent strengths and weaknesses. Humans do already make better mechanical machines than many human body systems.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 21 2010,21:17) Quote (theodorej @ July 21 2010,01:08) Quote (Stu @ July 20 2010,23:10) Quote (t8 @ July 20 2010,19:52) Quote (david @ July 17 2010,17:49) –An Athiest is biased towards WANTING God to be real and changing his beliefs.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.You underestimate the effect that the light can have on those who live in darkness. I know this first-hand. I lived in great darkness for years. At that time, I hated the light. I couldn't stand it. But I changed because I knew I had to. But not all make that choice.
Note the religious platitude:“the effect the light can have on those who live in darkness” etc.
What actually does it mean? “The light” could be anything. I have heard atheists use exactly the same expression to describe their deconversion from christianity, and I have to ask them what they mean too.
The bible is full of such nonsense statements, written to appear deep but actually meaning nothing at all. They expect the listener to construct all the meaning and not call the bluff that there is actually no inherent meaning in the statement.
Rather like a psychic cold reader fishing for “hits” in a wide-eyed and compliant audience.
Stuart
Greetings Stu…It is funny that you make reference to” Physic cold reader fishing for hits”….I sense a degree scepticism in your judgement….If you find yourself questioning a science that is based on theory than why not the validy of theory it self….Theory ( I think,maybe,it is possible and so on) theory not fact….Theory of the universe is based on a cosmic explosion…Show me one explosion that could create so much order….show me the transitional human speciment..
Well there are a lot of ideas all mixed up in there theodorej. Let's tease them out:Science is not “based on theory” but rather makes theories that explain collections of related facts. The theory is only as good as the next piece of relevant fact that comes along.
I cannot show you the kind of explosion that the Big Bang was, because it is not the kind of explosion with which we are familiar. It was not an explosion of something into space, but rather an explosion of the dimensions of space and time.
Except the species that have gone to extinction or that will go extinct, there is no species that is not a transitional form. We are transitional forms on the road to whatever new version we become: in the case of humans that new form will not actually be named as a distinct species for hundred of thousands of years after it emerges.
Here is homo erectus, a recent ancestor species of human and a “transitional form”, like everything else is:
Stuart
Great illustration of Homo Erectus….Let us not forget that primates today are still in their original state and are not writing books,inventing televisions or practicing medicine,they are swinging through trees and eating bananas and all through the centuries we have yet to find a transitional speci…..Science makes theories or creates them that does not make these theories facts….You lost me on your description of the big Bang THEORY….If it wasn't an explosion then why do they call it the BIG BANG…Quote (theodorej @ July 22 2010,23:15) Quote (Stu @ July 21 2010,21:17) Quote (theodorej @ July 21 2010,01:08) Quote (Stu @ July 20 2010,23:10) Quote (t8 @ July 20 2010,19:52) Quote (david @ July 17 2010,17:49) –An Athiest is biased towards WANTING God to be real and changing his beliefs.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.You underestimate the effect that the light can have on those who live in darkness. I know this first-hand. I lived in great darkness for years. At that time, I hated the light. I couldn't stand it. But I changed because I knew I had to. But not all make that choice.
Note the religious platitude:“the effect the light can have on those who live in darkness” etc.
What actually does it mean? “The light” could be anything. I have heard atheists use exactly the same expression to describe their deconversion from christianity, and I have to ask them what they mean too.
The bible is full of such nonsense statements, written to appear deep but actually meaning nothing at all. They expect the listener to construct all the meaning and not call the bluff that there is actually no inherent meaning in the statement.
Rather like a psychic cold reader fishing for “hits” in a wide-eyed and compliant audience.
Stuart
Greetings Stu…It is funny that you make reference to” Physic cold reader fishing for hits”….I sense a degree scepticism in your judgement….If you find yourself questioning a science that is based on theory than why not the validy of theory it self….Theory ( I think,maybe,it is possible and so on) theory not fact….Theory of the universe is based on a cosmic explosion…Show me one explosion that could create so much order….show me the transitional human speciment..
Well there are a lot of ideas all mixed up in there theodorej. Let's tease them out:Science is not “based on theory” but rather makes theories that explain collections of related facts. The theory is only as good as the next piece of relevant fact that comes along.
I cannot show you the kind of explosion that the Big Bang was, because it is not the kind of explosion with which we are familiar. It was not an explosion of something into space, but rather an explosion of the dimensions of space and time.
Except the species that have gone to extinction or that will go extinct, there is no species that is not a transitional form. We are transitional forms on the road to whatever new version we become: in the case of humans that new form will not actually be named as a distinct species for hundred of thousands of years after it emerges.
Here is homo erectus, a recent ancestor species of human and a “transitional form”, like everything else is:
Stuart
Great illustration of Homo Erectus….Let us not forget that primates today are still in their original state and are not writing books,inventing televisions or practicing medicine,they are swinging through trees and eating bananas and all through the centuries we have yet to find a transitional speci…..Science makes theories or creates them that does not make these theories facts….You lost me on your description of the big Bang THEORY….If it wasn't an explosion then why do they call it the BIG BANG…
The Big Bang is called that because Fred Hoyle did not like the theological implications for his atheism of the universe having a distinct beginning, so he called the theory by that name in mockery, and the proposers of the idea took it up and used it!There are primates living in trees and not making televisions because they do not have the brains to come up with the technology, but they still swing from the trees because there is no selection pressure on them to increase brain size. Of course humans are putting a variety of enormous selection pressures on many primate species that will drive them to extinction before natural selection can make any kind of response.
Stuart
Stuart,
I am not going to use science as my point of argument but rather logical reasoning. It is quite simple that it is imposible to actually prove that a fossil was ever a living thing simply because with sufficent technology one can theoretical make a fossil that was never a living thing. Now if you assume that God existed then he certainly has the technical capability to do so. Of course it would not even have to be God as some super advanced alien race could do the same thing. So you basically have to take it on faith that God or some equivilent being(s) did not interfere with the fossil record even though you have no evidence that is the case.
As for the Clockmaker I am indeed assuming that the Clockmaker is the same God that is testified of in the Judeo-Christian Scripture. He is the God I have chosen to believe in as he promises that he will enable me to love my neighbor as mystelf. That is my choice and though I would desire that other choose likewise it is up to them to make the choice that fits their soul.
Logically the Clockmaker can be anyone with sufficent technology or the equivilent ability to enable them to make human beings and other “machines” that exist in nature. That I cannot debate though it is rather obvious there is a Clockmaker as it is also obvious someone designed a Jet and it did not evolve from a wood burning stove though ther may be some similarities.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Kerwin
Quote I am not going to use science as my point of argument but rather logical reasoning. It is quite simple that it is imposible to actually prove that a fossil was ever a living thing simply because with sufficent technology one can theoretical make a fossil that was never a living thing.
Yes, nothing can be proved except in mathematics.Quote Now if you assume that God existed then he certainly has the technical capability to do so. Of course it would not even have to be God as some super advanced alien race could do the same thing. So you basically have to take it on faith that God or some equivilent being(s) did not interfere with the fossil record even though you have no evidence that is the case.
Sure. The Judeo-christian book of mythology describes its god as a deceiving god, so I suppose that fits in well. Is that your view of theology too?Quote As for the Clockmaker I am indeed assuming that the Clockmaker is the same God that is testified of in the Judeo-Christian Scripture. He is the God I have chosen to believe in as he promises that he will enable me to love my neighbor as mystelf. That is my choice and though I would desire that other choose likewise it is up to them to make the choice that fits their soul.
Have you called out to the Roman god Jupiter for him to show you what he has to offer you? Otherwise what choice did you make between gods? Why would you want me to choose such an obscenely unethical worldview?Quote Logically the Clockmaker can be anyone with sufficent technology or the equivilent ability to enable them to make human beings and other “machines” that exist in nature. That I cannot debate though it is rather obvious there is a Clockmaker as it is also obvious someone designed a Jet and it did not evolve from a wood burning stove though ther may be some similarities.
You’re talking science now kerwin: “it is obvious” must include making observations, and you are drawing conclusions from those observations. You want to use your own scientific observations without considering the scientific observations of others. Is that honest?How is it obvious that there is a clockmaker? Of course all you have is a fantasy description. Your “logical reasoning” breaks down with your use of the logical fallacy of composition. You assert that because some objects have a designer that all objects have a designer. That is not necessarily true. Analogy is not explanation. The simplest explanation for why you and I are here says there is no designer of human beings. Why do you feel the need to add a designer when there is none needed to explain how we came to be, and indeed no extra explaining power to be gained by inserting a god in the story anyway?
Stuart
Stuart,
As I pointed out I chose my God based on the desires of my soul and not exactly on what I had been taught. You could say I had been taught that it is best to love your neighbor as yourself and would have to agree with that. Never the less many are taught that and still choose differently than I choose. Other gods do not provide the food my soul craves.
I suppose I was arguing science when making the Clockmaker argument though it is a well known philosophical argument that has been around over a century. I was using a comparison to point at why the presence of a clock is evidence of a clockmaker. I am referring to man as an artificial device and God as The Artificer. Showing something is artificial is an argument used in some scientific circles to show what is manmade and what is not.
I am glad you understand that most everything except mathematics is based on faith. That was actually the main point I hoped to make at this time. The Clockmaker argument also interests me as it stimulates my intellect.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Kerwin
Quote As I pointed out I chose my God based on the desires of my soul and not exactly on what I had been taught. You could say I had been taught that it is best to love your neighbor as yourself and would have to agree with that. Never the less many are taught that and still choose differently than I choose. Other gods do not provide the food my soul craves.
We all have a right to our wishful thinking and fantasy scenarios!Quote I suppose I was arguing science when making the Clockmaker argument though it is a well known philosophical argument that has been around over a century.
Its most famous proponent was William Paley who asserted it two centuries ago.Quote I was using a comparison to point at why the presence of a clock is evidence of a clockmaker. I am referring to man as an artificial device and God as The Artificer. Showing something is artificial is an argument used in some scientific circles to show what is manmade and what is not.
Did you understand my point that it is a logical fallacy? It is either the fallacy of composition or it is circular logic, I think you could take it either way. Whichever you choose, your logic is invalid, I’m afraid.Quote I am glad you understand that most everything except mathematics is based on faith. That was actually the main point I hoped to make at this time.
Only things like god-belief, tarot cards and astrology are based on faith. I don’t base anything in my life on faith.Quote The Clockmaker argument also interests me as it stimulates my intellect.
Does it? I think Charles Darwin made mincemeat of it 151 years ago by showing why you don’t need any fantasy notion of a designer to explain how humans came to be.Stuart
Stu.
You are rather ignorant of some aspects of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Gregor Mendel did not do his famous study on genes until after Mr. Darwin came out with his theory. The variation of the pangenesis theory Darwin, himself advanced to support his theory was wrong. One of the adaptations to the theory that he argued is that changes that occurred after birth could be passed on to the offspring. The absurdity of that conclusion shows his scientific mythology was less than perfect.
For some reason researches seem to have problems adapting his theory of natural selection to the actual evidence that Mendel presented when he discovered genetics. According to Darwin a change happens gradually and yet according to Mendel’s experiments the change can occur suddenly as one allele of a gene becomes another. Darwin considered sudden changes to be disastrous to his theory as he felt that such odd creature would be monsters and thus outcasts decreasing the chance of them passing their traits to the next generation.
Now we know that DNA/RNA is basically a machine code and every other machine code we know is an artificial construct. You of course try to claim their can always be an exception and as such an Oldsmobile may actually have resulted from random mutation and natural selection. I find that quite the leap of fancy but you can believe whatever you desire.
I am a little fuzzy on the next issue but I believe that transfer and ribosomal RNAs are basically the parts of the computing machine that translate the machine code into the actual building blocks of life. It is an ingenious device and from what I understand for the most part the machine code of life is standardized. There seems to be some exception to the universality of DNA/RNA but my access to the appropriate knowledge is limited and somewhat old.
Since you cannot actually prove with a logical argument that dinosaurs were a living creature I tend to treat and speculation about such things by anyone as speculative science. Another word for it is science fiction for chances are if you wait long enough then the prevalent theory about it will be altered once again as it has been numerous times.
The fact you are in denial about basing things on faith does not make it any less true. Everyone bases many things on faith since quite simply one cannot actually prove anything with certainly beyond the fact they exist. You could be dreaming after all but I believe you take it on faith that you are not.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
kerwin
Quote You are rather ignorant of some aspects of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Gregor Mendel did not do his famous study on genes until after Mr. Darwin came out with his theory. The variation of the pangenesis theory Darwin, himself advanced to support his theory was wrong. One of the adaptations to the theory that he argued is that changes that occurred after birth could be passed on to the offspring. The absurdity of that conclusion shows his scientific mythology was less than perfect.
But his Lamarckism does not bear on the validity of his theory of natural selection.Quote For some reason researches seem to have problems adapting his theory of natural selection to the actual evidence that Mendel presented when he discovered genetics. According to Darwin a change happens gradually and yet according to Mendel’s experiments the change can occur suddenly as one allele of a gene becomes another. Darwin considered sudden changes to be disastrous to his theory as he felt that such odd creature would be monsters and thus outcasts decreasing the chance of them passing their traits to the next generation. Now we know that DNA/RNA is basically a machine code and every other machine code we know is an artificial construct. You of course try to claim their can always be an exception and as such an Oldsmobile may actually have resulted from random mutation and natural selection. I find that quite the leap of fancy but you can believe whatever you desire.
It is true that all cars are extended phenotypes and therefore they all resulted from natural selection!Quote I am a little fuzzy on the next issue but I believe that transfer and ribosomal RNAs are basically the parts of the computing machine that translate the machine code into the actual building blocks of life. It is an ingenious device and from what I understand for the most part the machine code of life is standardized. There seems to be some exception to the universality of DNA/RNA but my access to the appropriate knowledge is limited and somewhat old.
Are you trying to say that three bases make up a codon that directs the ribosome to add a particular amino acid onto a protein chain? I’m not sure in what way you would need to consider that “standardised”: it is chemicals doing spontaneous chemistry.Quote Since you cannot actually prove with a logical argument that dinosaurs were a living creature I tend to treat and speculation about such things by anyone as speculative science.
You cannot prove that you are alive either.Quote Another word for it is science fiction for chances are if you wait long enough then the prevalent theory about it will be altered once again as it has been numerous times.
Darwin’s has been one of the most long-lived scientific theories in all history. While chemistry, physics, geology and astronomy have undergone radical changes, evolution by natural selection remains the central organising principle of all biology. Without it biology really makes no sense at all.Quote The fact you are in denial about basing things on faith does not make it any less true. Everyone bases many things on faith since quite simply one cannot actually prove anything with certainly beyond the fact they exist. You could be dreaming after all but I believe you take it on faith that you are not.
One example that was correct would have proved me wrong.You’re on a fishing expedition here kerwin. You accused me of ignorance, and while indeed I am ignorant about many things, you did not say what it was I didn’t know that was relevant, and how it bore on our conversation. You have no actual points to make against science, and certainly no disproof of anything. All you are doing is stating that which you do not like. Don’t think there is any credibility in stating that you are not going to use scientific arguments but then building strawmen of science to attack. Science is not in the business of logical reason from unsupported assertions. It does not deal in proof, only disproof. If you don’t like what science says about history you will have to show why it is bad science, because it does not claim to have logical proofs.
Stuart
Greetings Stu….An example of bad science was the early THEORY of astronomy and that being The sun revolves around the earth…This bad science was an intricate part of Astrology…(eg bad science wrong education 2+2=5)…Modern day medicine is forever replacing bad science and theory with modern day trial and error research and technology…Science offers no proof only theory and results through practical application……OH! and stu….ignorance is bliss….alot of folks confuse ignorance with stupidity….Not me…Stupidity is much more easily recognised…
Quote (theodorej @ July 25 2010,23:56) An example of bad science was the early THEORY of astronomy and that being The sun revolves around the earth…This bad science was an intricate part of Astrology…(eg bad science wrong education 2+2=5
This “bad science, wrong education,” would never have continued for as long as it did had it not been for ignorance being enforced by religion.Tim
Quote (theodorej @ July 25 2010,23:56) Greetings Stu….An example of bad science was the early THEORY of astronomy and that being The sun revolves around the earth…This bad science was an intricate part of Astrology…(eg bad science wrong education 2+2=5)…Modern day medicine is forever replacing bad science and theory with modern day trial and error research and technology…Science offers no proof only theory and results through practical application……OH! and stu….ignorance is bliss….alot of folks confuse ignorance with stupidity….Not me…Stupidity is much more easily recognised…
Geocentrism was not bad science, it was the best explanation given the observations made at the time. It was a wrong conclusion based on insufficient evidence. As Tim IV has implied, the robustness of science is its insistence on being proved wrong if possible. Of course it is rare that science is overturned, usually new discoveries allow refinement of existing models, or new models that give greater insight into the previous ones. Engineers still use Newton's laws but they understand the implications of Heisenberg too.Not sure what you mean by stupidity there theodorej.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
