Science isn't All That Reliable...

A past Mormon friend of mine said that wasn't science, but god giving us that knowledge.

 

Your assessment also proves that you are in error. In fact it shows that you are speaking through a condition known as "ignorance of the subject matter", the subject matter being me. Though I don't consider the proper use of semantics to be a game, you obviously do. It operates in a similar manner as does the game of 'logic'.

 

"Incorporeal's bag"? What does that mean? Around this household, there are found several different types of bags... laundry bag, shopping bag, garbage bags...etc., is there a specific type or category which could be properly called 'Incorporeals bag'.

Error, Error, Error. Kmismo has committed yet another error. He presumes that he knows what Incorporeal thinks. That would imply that kmisho believes himself to be a mind reader... the reading of minds is an act that is outside the field of science.. it is not a proven fact.... yet kmisho thinks that he is a mind reader.

 

I never admitted that I made a semantic mistake. You are correct that evolution remains a theory. Your supposition that a semantic mistake somehow qualifies the bible as the scientific equivalent of the theory of evolution is quite sad. If you'd like to discuss actual science I would be more than happy to discuss science with you. Religion is not science and science is not religion. Unfortunately, some people seem to be wholly incapable of making this distinction. Again, the only scientific explanation for speciation on this planet is the theory of evolution. The genesis creation myth is not supported by ANY scientific evidence. Consequently, it is not a valid scientific explanation of ANYTHING. I do not understand why this is such an elusive concept for some.

 

Proof of the error in your preconceived notion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

Sure the religious answers can be questioned. Another misconception on your part. Please provide an example of a mistake that 'religion' has made. Be specific and show how that mistake was conducted.

 

That is an opinion, not a fact. Again, if you would like to discuss science I would be more than happy to discuss it with you.

 

The evidence is on my side. You stated "We could debate semantics indefinetely but thats really not why I'm here.", inferring that there is a semantic issue. Such inference is accepted as an admission considering that you do not desire to enter into the discussion of semantics which subject you voluntarily brought into the current discussion. Acquiescence. Silent admission by virtue of refusal to discuss the issue.

Another admission that evolution has not been proven to be a FACT.

Epic fail on your part. The semantic issue has nothing to do with my supposition. You affirm my supposition above when you admit openly "You are correct that evolution remains a theory." Theories are not proven facts and as such, they are merely opinions, and as opinions, they are no more worthy than the opinions of others. Just like the opinions of non-Theists in regards to matters of religion.

Then why do so many people on this forum desire to drag science into the religion forum? You admit to there being a distinct difference, yet you are one that promotes the notion of discussing science in the religion forum.

See, there you go again. Dragging more science stuff into the religious forum. Do you not even comprehend what you have just finished stating ... you know about the distinction between the two???

So what? Remember what you said... religion is not science and science is not religion. Those were your words. Can't you tell the difference?

Who said that it was a 'valid scientific explanation'. If you want a valid scientific explanation, then go make your inquiry in the 'science' section of the PF forum.

 

Are you suggesting that the development of the atomic bomb did not have government financing, and that the operational technology of the A-bomb was not developed by that group of scientists?

Seemingly, we are already discussing issues pertaining to economics, science, religion, military strategy, weapons of mass destruction... and probably more than what I am listing.

 

No, I'm suggesting that entirety of the this sentence is not a fact. Nothing more, nothing less. I would like to continue to discuss the reliability of science. OK??

 

Semantics.

An engineering problem does not imply that science is unreliable.

Better?

Irrelevant to the question of the reliability of science. Again, you can not blame the misuse of science on science. You should blame it on misuse.

Science misused in not science any more than putting horns on a dog makes it a reindeer.

The theory of relativity is confirmed in the fact that we humans can kill the Earth at the drop of a hat. Every hydrogen bomb is a fact that works to confirm the theory of relativity.

e=mc^2

 

So can we blame God when the science is unreliable?

 

Care to actually discuss science or religion?

 

"This man, he doesn't know when he's beaten! He doesn't know when he's winning, either. He has no sort of sensory apparatus."

He did not bring semantics into the discussion. You employed semantics and he called you on it.

And he was right to do so. Semantics can have no bearing on the issue in question. Thus when you employ semantics you are only dodging. And it is pointless to try to discuss ANYTHING with someone who uses semantics as a dodge.

 

No! You fail to take into account the fact that the incident happened in a scientific laboratory, under the direction of scientists. Therefore, science being conducted by scientists failed to provide safe-guards... an issue of unreliability in the establishment of an adequate SOP containing those safe-guards.

No! It should be blamed on science.

The following timeline shows that the scientists knew before the bomb was constructed that fission was being considered as a military weapon:
"January 29,1939 Robert Oppenheimer realizes the military possibilities of nuclear fission.
August 2, 1939 Albert Einstein writes to President Franklin Roosevelt concerning the use of uranium as a new source of energy leading to the formation of the Committee on Uranium.
September 1, 1939 World War II Begins.
February 23, 1941 Plutonium is discovered by Glenn Seaborg.
October 9, 1941 FDR gives the go-ahead for the development of an atomic weapon.
December 6, 1941 FDR authorizes the Manhattan Engineering District for the purpose of creating an atomic bomb. This would later be called the 'Manhattan Project'.
September 23, 1942 Colonel Leslie Groves is placed in charge of the Manhattan Project. J. Robert Oppenheimer becomes the Project's Scientific Director."

Then you are now saying that the development of the a-bomb was not a scientific achievement. Interesting.

P*** on that theory of relativity when that theory has the potential of destroying mankind. But why should scientists be concerned about the safety and welfare of humans when they can receive the glory of annihilating all living creatures on this little green and blue marble. That time-line above, clearly shows that the scientists involved knew before hand that they were constructing a device of mass destruction capable of killing many many thousands of people. They engaged their services in spite of the advanced warning.

e=mc^2 = thousands killed.

 

Like the use of semantics is against the rules and the use of 'logical fallacies' is perfectly ok? You and others object to the use of semantics simply because semantics shows your weaknesses. In short, semantics shows that you are not infallible and that a lot of times, you speak/write things that you have no idea of the actual meanings and implications. The use of semantics is no more of a 'dodge' than the use of 'logical fallacies'.

BTW: 'as a topic of discussion', he did bring semantics into this discussion. My employment of the semantic rules is irrelevant.

 

You have accomplished absolutely nothing with semantics. Like I said, we could debate semantics indefinitely. However, some of us realize the futility of such an endeavor. Have a nice day Incorporeal.

 

We have been discussing both. Is there a problem with your reading comprehension?

BTW: When I encounter techniques such as you have employed in the text above,, I disregard the comments as being alterations of actual quotes. Which can be regarded as a violation of the TOS. Embedding your comments into my statements IMO is such a violation. They are subsequently ignored and are neither admitted nor denied. When you learn how to properly address my comments in a manner that can be construed as the 'norm', then I will respond to them. Until then, I view them as though they don't exist.

 

That is what we are discussing. I am pointing out where science and scientists have been unreliable with regard to their duty to mankind.

 

The scientific method has shown us how the world works. What we do with the world we find is a different thing. Science is not a thing, it is a methodology for investigating the nature of the world. Science as a methodology is self correcting both short and long term, and requires verification and replication.

Science has been so exceptional at the job of investigating and systematically assembling knowledge, that you can manipulate elemental particles within nanometer scale switches to do complex mathematical calculations. Those calculations allow an electronic computer to interact with the user, and even users on the other side of the planet in practically real time.

The bible thinks pi is three.

Which methodology would you say is more productive at discovering the world?

Science as a method is not perfect because humans aren't perfect. We make mistakes. We fool ourselves sometimes. We even occasionally commit outright fraud. (mercifully infrequently) Sometimes critical information or data just isn't available or even known to exist! The good thing about science as a method is that it doesn't care if humans aren't perfect, because if you apply it long enough, by enough different people, then the self correction mechanisms can kick in.

 

This should prove to be of interest to those who are so caught up in the realm of science:

http://user.it.uu.se/~pugwash/Etik/uppsalakodex

"Code of Ethics for Scientists"

 

Scientists are not a monoculture.

And what exactly is wrong with this statement?

 

If I misuse Christianity, does that mean there is something wrong with Christianity? Of course not. There is something wrong with ME for misusing it.

Still, that nuclear weapons work is a testament to the reliability of science.

 

Who said anything about a 'monoculture'?

Which statement? Several were made within the quote, and then we must include your initial statement before the question.

 

Scientists- like all humans- are not perfect. BTW as a scientist I was not aware that I had a duty to mankind... News to me!!!

 

That is simply astounding. I never realized that to be a fact. Are you serious? Do you really mean that they, like less important classes of people, are subject to error in judgment?