What are the odds that 28if is going to come back to the board...

[mxzombie]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

lol you know very little of what scientists are like.

i was talking about science as a system of thought. scientists can be selfish jerks just like anyone else.

I've done some drinking with a LOT of professional scientists (with whom I'm friends).

[Graveflower]

Originally Posted by Starla

Last edited by Starla : Today at 01:44 AM. Reason: n/m

well that's just silly, innit?

[Graveflower]

Originally Posted by mxzombie

I've done some drinking with a LOT of professional scientists (with whom I'm friends).

mxzombie isn't just talking anecdotal, it is his experience

[Cool As Ice Cream]

del

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Graveflower

well that's just silly, innit?

"Takuni' slolye sni ikce wicasa.......sni TATANKA!"

[duovamp]

Now that's fucking offensive.

[redbreegull]

Science does not prove anything, nor does it claim to prove anything. It only claims to identify probabilities based on other probabilities we accept. This does not mean scientific fact is "objective," although it could maybe be a better point of view than religion. Science is also based on empiricism. There is no way to be certain that what we experience through our five senses is an accurate portrayal of the "objective" universe outside our bodies. We have no knowledge of what that objectivity would look like, or if it exists.

Eulogy's tongue-in-cheek comment is essentially correct, there is no certainty or proof of anything. Anyone who thinks science claims this kind of inside knowledge into the universe's workings does not understand the scientific method. Science involves leaps of faith like any other point of view.

BTW, I am probably one of the biggest proponents of science on this board. I think science is really nifty.

[redbreegull]

[mxzombie]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Science does not prove anything, nor does it claim to prove anything. It only claims to identify probabilities based on other probabilities we accept. This does not mean scientific fact is "objective," although it could maybe be a better point of view than religion. Science is also based on empiricism. There is no way to be certain that what we experience through our five senses is an accurate portrayal of the "objective" universe outside our bodies. We have no knowledge of what that objectivity would look like, or if it exists.

Eulogy's tongue-in-cheek comment is essentially correct, there is no certainty or proof of anything. Anyone who thinks science claims this kind of inside knowledge into the universe's workings does not understand the scientific method. Science involves leaps of faith like any other point of view.

i'm not getting how saying "this is the best we can come up with" requires a leap of faith

[Eulogy]

it's a useless conversation that uses hyper-technical definitions of "proof" and "faith" in order to make some pseudo-intellectual argument

[Eulogy]

and usually i'm all for hyper-technical definitions and usually i hate when people use the term pseuedo-intellectual

but this can be an exception

[redbreegull]

it's not a useless argument, understanding that science does not equal objectivity is critical to what science means in our 21st century understanding of the universe.

If I ask you do you believe in gravity, you will probably say yes.

Then if I ask you how you know that to be true, you could either cite me scientific information on it, or you could put into play your empirical understanding that you don't fly off into space when you jump. Both require faith. You are either putting faith into what others have told you, or said, or written about gravity, or you are putting faith in your senses.

How are you guys not understanding the similarity here to adherence to any other belief system? I'm not saying science isn't a better vantage point for exploring the universe than mysticism or spiritualism, but it also requires faith.

[john's ego]

if i were to right now throw a tennis ball at a speed of less than 11km/s and it were to fly off into space forever, never to be seen again, then we would certainly need to assess what just happened there and attempt to replicate the results so that we may better understand what happened. but since bodies are attracted to each other according to F=G((m₁m₂)/r²) and all observations of interstellar bodies are consistent with this, it's reasonable to go ahead an assume that future observed behavior will be consistent with this. otherwise, theories may have to be (and actually have been) changed, or adapted.

if faith in gravity were anything like faith in god, there definitely wouldn't be any equations involved. and even if there were, secondary observations of dark matter would be cast aside as "whelp, gravity works in mysterious ways" and the large hadron collider wouldn't exist.

[john's ego]

but rereading your post, it's clear you don't understand the definition of the word faith.

[duovamp]

I have the exact same reasons to believe in mighty Thor as I do in Einstein's laws of relativity. THE. EXACT. SAME. /thread

[john's ego]

woamp

[killtrocity]

My whole point is that rational faith is nothing like faith in god, the difference being experience and reason versus blind adherence to authority

[Charmbag]

A lot of white feelings in this thread

[duovamp]

Racist as fuck.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

A lot of white feelings in this thread

that was an interesting edit

[Charmbag]

I thought it was a clearer way to state the same idea

[Eulogy]

uhhh it's pretty obviously a lot more vague

[Eulogy]

i think maybe you wanted to just be more passive aggressive

which is fine i guess

[Charmbag]

That was not my intention, no

[Barack Obama]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

A lot of white feelings in this thread

[slunken]

[Barack Obama]

[slunken]

hey y'all i shook hands with the president!

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

That was not my intention, no

gonna go ahead and call bullshit on this

"how is it so hard for white people to not be racist?"

v.

"a lot of white feelings in this thread."

the second is clearly more vague and clearly more passive aggressive.

own it.

[slunken]