DLRFags updates

[Seshmeister]

You fundamentally don't understand the scientific method or you would know that faith is the opposite of science. I blame the schools.

It always strikes me as incredible that people can sit typing into a tiny electronic device, sending a message across the world for free saying that science is bullshit.

Next time use your conspiracy prayer faith machine, that way the rest of us don't need to get involved.

[Seshmeister]

And it has everything to do with math.

You don't 'believe' in radio triangulation which is 100 year old technology based on basic math you should have been taught as a teenager.

[Zing!]

faith is the opposite of science.

Opposite only in the way a yang is opposite of a ying - but they both compliment the overall circle. Faith and science are getting closer to merging every day.

I sound like a fortune cookie.

[Anonymous]

You fundamentally don't understand the scientific method or you would know that faith is the opposite of science. I blame the schools.

It always strikes me as incredible that people can sit typing into a tiny electronic device, sending a message across the world for free saying that science is bullshit.

Next time use your conspiracy prayer faith machine, that way the rest of us don't need to get involved.

I actually agree that faith IS the opposite of science, that's why I don't understand your blind faith in science.

Remember that geezer what you posted a few years ago mumbling about the universe or some such? Well, some time in, he says that "50 years ago, we thought the universe, blah, blah, blah, scientific mumbo jumbo, but NOW we KNOW, etc." & I thought, hang on.

50 years ago there was probably a bloke saying the same thing & 50 years from now, who knows? History repeats itself, if you'll pardon the beat up old saying.

What I mean by this is, you believe in science the same way a religious zealot believes in the church - it's all indisputable truths.

Well, it isn't. Science is discovering new things daily & what now is a tentative truth may very well be a complete falsehood tomorrow.

About your "conspiracy prayer faith machine", if you think I'm gullible enough to believe what paedophiles teach, well, you insult me!

And it has everything to do with math.

You don't 'believe' in radio triangulation which is 100 year old technology based on basic math you should have been taught as a teenager.

Who said I don't believe in radio triangulation? Of course I believe it, THAT is quite true.

As true as tampered data.

Cheers!

[Seshmeister]

The argument you are using is called continuum fallacy and it's BS.

The logic behind this "argument" is fallacious in a number of ways. Primarily it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science: discarded theories aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or alternatives. Often enough, these "new" theories are already in existence and just waiting in the wings ready for new evidence to come along and differentiate them. For example, the fact that quantum theory doesn't explain gravity does not invalidate the Schrödinger equation or the quantisation of energy, it merely says that the current formulation of the theory is incomplete and there are modifications to quantum theory already being formulated, ready for when the next big leap in observational evidence occurs. Another example could be if the Higgs boson wasn't found: the Standard Model would have to be revised, but that doesn't mean decades of research would be thrown out the window.

The fact that science can be "wrong" in this way is a feature, not a bug, as one of the differences between science and pseudoscience is that science is self-correcting whereas pseudoscience continues to put forth the same debunked points over and over again. These pseudoscientists present "science" as a monolithic entity with no difference between different types of science and the uncertainties associated with each field. For example, an economic study of the minimum wage that uses the scientific method cannot be replicated as easily as, say, a basic chemistry experiment that can be repeated in a lab - like finding the boiling point of a chemical. Thus, the economic study may not be "wrong," but has a lower degree of certainty attached to it than the chemistry experiment. Inability to make this distinction is often the result of the failure to think in a Bayesian fashion, in which the subtleties of errors are more accurately appreciated. Thus the "science was wrong before" argument it conflates different types of errors within science, confusing incompleteness of theories with being outright wrong. This, as Isaac Asimov called it in his essay The Relativity of Wrong, is a form of being wronger than wrong.

But more than just being a complete misrepresentation of science, claiming that "science was wrong before" is flawed at the even basic logical level. It can be considered a non sequitur or red herring because it usually has nothing to do with the subject at hand. For example, the fact that phlogiston was wrong has no bearing on whether or not evolution is correct, and the observation that neutrinos may travel faster than light has absolutely no relevance to homeopathy,[3] as that is already governed by a certain evidence base.

This is also a false dichotomy; someone using the argument is apparently suggesting that all of science and rationalist thought must be perfectly correct the first time or their selected woo-du-jour must be correct. Using a reductio ad absurdum, the argument can apply to any and all forms of science and technology. Therefore, there would be no way to test the validity of any claims besides "other ways of knowing." But no one would say, "I'm not going to drive in a car! Science has been wrong before!"

[Seshmeister]

I'm away to the pub.

[Anonymous]

Where the hell do you come off, telling people science is never wrong?

I swear, it's just like talking to an extremely patronizing priest who really believes the bullshit he feeds to his flock. You just copy paste stuff from the internets, like a Jehovah's witness would read from the scriptures to convince others that god is the absolute truth.

WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING DINOSAURS, EH?

Giant lizards that ruled the Earth 66 million years ago, my ass.

Turns out they were just rather large chickens all along. I bet you that someone in KFC pulled a Hammond a long time ago, & we're being served Raptor's breast. It's the only way you can explain the foul smell & taste.

Mind you, one of these days, the Raptors will escape & then we're all fucked. Science already knows that Raptors CAN open doors.

Science is often wrong & it's too early to go to the pub. You'll just have to deal with it.

Cheers!

[Anonymous]

The argument you are using is called continuum fallacy and it's BS.

Actually, it's called "winding you up" & it is NOT BS, as it is working rather well.

Look, I know it's hard to come to grips with our beliefs being dismantled as easily as a house of cards, but that bloke that kept rabitting on about outer space, was doing what he was paid to do.

Cuntvince whoever cares about that sort of thing that science is, in fact, making progress towards absolute knowledge, instead of just poncing about on their laboratories all the time.

He couldn't do that if he admitted that they don't know everything just yet. Just imagine, "Huh, so 50 years ago we thought this, but now, we're leaning more towards that, because our studies seem to show that, for now, that's the right direction, we think. We'll continue studying & testing & we'll see what comes of it, maybe we'll just have to go in another, completely different direction, but we won't really know before rather exhaustive research."

THAT would be honesty, but not what you want to hear, am I right?

All in all, the geezer is an extremely competent git what deserves all the money he was paid to do that, since he did put on a damn decent show. I watched it all the way through the end & I care even less about space than I do about the alleged moon landing.

Cheers!

[sonrisa salvaje]

This thread took a major turn for the serious.

[cadaverdog]

It has nothing to do with math & you know it.

But I really cannot help but be reminded of a religious fundamentalist's speech, when you close your eyes & ears to all discussion that does not meet your approval.

Really, there's not that much difference between you & Elvis, just switch god for science & there you have it.

You could be twins!

Cheers!

When the doctor went to smack him on the ass when he was born he told his mama she had twins. I know that's an oldy but a moldy but it's the first thing I thought of when you said Sesh and Elvis were twins. I hope I don't get banned again.

[Seshmeister]

Actually, it's called "winding you up" & it is NOT BS, as it is working rather well.

Look, I know it's hard to come to grips with our beliefs being dismantled as easily as a house of cards, but that bloke that kept rabitting on about outer space, was doing what he was paid to do.

Cuntvince whoever cares about that sort of thing that science is, in fact, making progress towards absolute knowledge, instead of just poncing about on their laboratories all the time.

He couldn't do that if he admitted that they don't know everything just yet. Just imagine, "Huh, so 50 years ago we thought this, but now, we're leaning more towards that, because our studies seem to show that, for now, that's the right direction, we think. We'll continue studying & testing & we'll see what comes of it, maybe we'll just have to go in another, completely different direction, but we won't really know before rather exhaustive research."

THAT would be honesty, but not what you want to hear, am I right?

All in all, the geezer is an extremely competent git what deserves all the money he was paid to do that, since he did put on a damn decent show. I watched it all the way through the end & I care even less about space than I do about the alleged moon landing.

Cheers!

I don't recall this guy but if you watched the whole thing then it seems he was interesting enough, I edit all the shit I see and read in a day and only put a few percent of it up here.

The thing I don't get with your post(s) is this weird idea that you think scientists think they know everything, it's usually the opposite, the more you know the more you realise how little you know.

[ELVIS]

Well, I know science can't measure the dimensions of the spirit realm, but they're there...

Unless of course, you trust Obomba...





He ripped that line off from Gertrude Stein, BTW...

[Igosplut]

The thing I don't get with your post(s) is this weird idea that you think scientists think they know everything, it's usually the opposite, the more you know the more you realise how little you know.

Amen brother.......

[Satan]

Where the hell do you come off, telling people science is never wrong?

I swear, it's just like talking to an extremely patronizing priest who really believes the bullshit he feeds to his flock. You just copy paste stuff from the internets, like a Jehovah's witness would read from the scriptures to convince others that god is the absolute truth.

WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING DINOSAURS, EH?

Giant lizards that ruled the Earth 66 million years ago, my ass.

Turns out they were just rather large chickens all along. I bet you that someone in KFC pulled a Hammond a long time ago, & we're being served Raptor's breast. It's the only way you can explain the foul smell & taste.

Mind you, one of these days, the Raptors will escape & then we're all fucked. Science already knows that Raptors CAN open doors.

Science is often wrong & it's too early to go to the pub. You'll just have to deal with it.

Cheers!

Perhaps the difference is that when science finds out it was wrong, it doesn't have a problem admitting so, and revising the hypothesis to comply with the new evidence.

Dogma (religious or otherwise) on the other horn, says "fuck the new evidence. What we said was the truth is still the goddamned truth, and if you don't like it, you....."

a) are going to Hell (religious dogma)
b) are an America hating Communist (political dogma)
c) both, if being accused by a teabagger

[Kristy]

Think I'm having a stroke.