What makes a ranking general an expert on aerial phenomena? Why do the people who do look at the sky a lot have a much lower incident rate with unidentified objects in the sky?
Because the scientific method does not throw up the result you want, it does not mean the method is wrong, just your expectations
Said Scientific Method throws out the results & interpretations supporting the thesis as paid for. Witness new medicines that undergo such rigorous trials to make it to market, withdrawn quickly due to "unforeseen reactions". Tell me it ain't so. Tell me you never heard those stories on the news. What kind of "scientist" produced those studies to gain approval through rigorous trials? Paid ones. Do you think anyone could receive a grant to study the Little Warm Up via Ice Cores or Tree Rings and compare it to today's "climate change"? Not likely. And the government will never support research on the benefits of carbohydrate restriction. What would the corn and wheat growers say? Waffles and Syrup or Bacon and Eggs. Me. I take the later. I feel better. Moi BTW without carbs you can't eat that much fat. Carbs lets you eat more oil, fat, grease than you can normally stomach. How many pats of butter can you eat? How many with bread? Get it? No
Doofuses like 0bama and Algore are doing bad things to the public perception of science by preaching from a pulpit about the science being in on the silly claims made by global warming alarmists. Seriously. The laymen among us will only learn to distrust what scientists say and come to be suspicious of science as a whole as these BSers in politics try to implicate science in their latest set of lies meant to prop up money- and power-grabbing legislation. Shame on these politicians, and shame on scientists who join in with the doomsday speak and the browbeating. If you want science to remain respected publicly, don't allow it to be so sullied.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein As an example, what is discussed and debated to a greater extent ...65+ years after the fact... was it necessary and moral for the United States to drop two atomic bombs on Imperialist Japan in 1945 or how does nuclear fission produce an atomic bomb. Regarding the latter, the science behind this is straight forward; when a single free neutron strikes the nucleus of an atom of radioactive material like uranium or plutonium, it knocks two or three more neutrons free. Energy is released when those neutrons split off from the nucleus, and the newly released neutrons strike other uranium or plutonium nuclei, splitting them in the same way, releasing more energy and more neutrons. This chain reaction spreads almost instantaneously. This is the science of an atomic bomb. A discussion regarding the ethical use of the science is just as valid, would you not agree? This is what Einstein was driving at, the pursuit of science as an endeavor without a deeper framework as to how it may be applied to the human condition is...lame. The atomic bombs. when dropped, immediately ended the lives of over 150,000 human beings, and thousands more suffered a slow, agonizing and painful demise at the hands of radiation poisoning. We can say, they were our enemy, more would have died had we not used them. We can ethically argue this, and this is often debated. Just as it is often debated that the use of the atomic bombs were unethical. The science remains static, it is independent of the ethical issue, yet the ethical issue is just as valid...would you not agree? While I am not a creationist, or a fundamentalist, I do value and hold dearly the ethical considerations inherent in Judeo-Christian beliefs. I believe these provide a moral compass sorely lacking in any secularized humanistic approach to the topic of ethics with it's sliding scale of utilitarian moral relativity. We need to establish some absolutes...much like Asimov's three laws of robotics. 1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. An absolute...essential to the melding of science & technology within the framework of our humanity. Religion provides these absolutes, these moral constants, that science & technology independently do not consider.
I completely disagree. Elitism is at the core of anti science. Even in times past, the ruling elite, or the scientific elite were opposed to the free thinkers of the day. Many of the major scientific discoveries in history were done in SPITE of the elite, not because of them. Man's ego & arrogance has NOT changed. He still uses power, fear, & intimidation to protect his turf. The elite pseudo scientists today are no different. Statistics show that american education is very clearly 'dumbing down'. Basic literacy is not even met, much less more advanced concepts like critical thinking or the scientific method. Inner city schools are growing examples of the rise of anti science. Rather than face the facts of their policy failures, they 'redefine' what success is. Literacy in basic things like math or even reading are glossed over for social redefinitions & promotion of grievance, instead of equipping young people to function in a technological world. In times past, the ruling elite & scientific 'establishment' were primarily in the religious institutions. I see it as no different today. The only difference is the religion. Instead of christianity or islam (which was a major player in science & mathematics in their early years), we now have institutional atheism & secular humanism ruling the roost. But their practice of mandating conformity has not changed, & they are systematically crushing open inquiry at the altar of dogmatic compliance. “Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.” ~Albert Einstein You illustrate the basic point of the OP. 'Science' has become a political propaganda tool. It's misuse has caused a reaction in the NON elite sector, because they see the use of 'science' as a political club. But it is not true science that is being reacted to, but the misuse.. pseudo science claiming things it has not proved by the scientific method, only asserted & mandated, by NON scientific people using scientific terms. Real science does not oppose any 'theories' about the supernatural, or even beliefs. It is true that the scientific method cannot prove a theory, but neither can it disprove it. The militant atheist is just as dogmatic & opposed to real science as the militant muslim or any religious dogma driven by ideology. The scientific method cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. It might, someday, if conclusive evidence becomes available that is repeatable & testable, but this seems unlikely. So these opinions about the supernatural remain beyond the scope of the scientific method, except to conclude 'we don't know'. THAT is an honest, scientific conclusion, not a dogmatic assertion about the supernatural in the universe. But, 'we don't know' is very unsatisfying. So religious or philosophical opinions are bandied about, often masked in pseudo scientific terms. But it is not the scientific method. Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. ~Albert Einstein 1. Not sure of your point.. are you saying that the patents of technological discoveries are tighter than the last century? That might be, but the technology itself is much more available than in times past. Knowledge is available over the internet & information can be found instantly, instead of from obscure books or tightly controlled teaching hierarchies. Simple technology is always more available, but some recent technological advances have come by kids in a garage. I agree that the more advanced technologies, like bio med, nuclear, aerospace, etc, are beyond the scope of most kids with a microscope set. But the point here is that in the 50s & 60s, lots of kids got microscope sets for christmas.. today that is not on the list for santa. 2. Absolutely, scientific advancement has come from building on the past discoveries. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. We live in a time of amazing technological knowledge, which has taken millennia to arrive at. The last 100 years has seen the biggest boom in technological building that the world has ever seen. They are all small steps that have accumulated to where we are, now. But in the broader scheme of things, the wheel, even though simple in technology, might be a more significant discovery than nuclear physics. But i am not discounting any previous discoveries.. or demeaning the building blocks of knowledge. I see 'authority' as the enemy of this advancement, not an ally. That is how authority has worked, throughout the millennia, & it is no different now. Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. ~Albert Einstein
good points. 1. there is always a backlash from the scientific establishment for any outliers. Instead of promoting open discourse, & an environment of free query, the establishment has always tried to crush any dissenters with political power. 2. I don't define 'anti science' as the public's backlash, but the mandating of the establishment. The real 'anti science' is IN the establishment, mandated conformity. Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~Albert Einstein I see them as one & the same. There are exceptions in 'mainstream science,' but the current practice of truth by decree is the anti science the OP addresses. Since when is a nobel peace prize given on knowledge or truth? It has become a tool for political propaganda, & has NOTHING to do with empirical science.
Spot on. These are the exact premises of the OP. The modern scientific establishment is NO DIFFERENT than any in the past.. they assume omnipotence, & demand worship. They arrogantly float around in their flowing robes of sanctimony, while oppressing any genuine, open pursuit of Truth. They are, & have always been, enemies of real science, & the pursuit of truth. True science IS humble. They do not dogmatically claim anything that cannot be proved, scientifically. Uncertainty & inquiry are their central tenets, not mandates & decrees. No. Science does NOT have to conclude anything about the unknown. We can speculate about the universe, based on scientific knowledge, but the truth of science is non emotional, & has no agenda. Real science is not antagonistic toward religion, in any form. It cannot conclude anything about the unknown, as the very definition of science relies on the known. Facts, not agenda, drive true science. Any faith based structure, even atheism, is not a scientific discipline, & those looking to use science to validate their philosophical beliefs are in for a lifetime of frustration, contradiction, & anti science. Another excellent post! You obviously have first hand experience with the anti science establishment. They are agenda driven, not science driven. Hence, they are 'anti science'.
You make a good point. You have statistical information to cause you to BELIEVE in extra terrestrial life. You have no scientific, empirical evidence, yet your beliefs & life experiences compel you to conclude this as a possibility. This is an example of faith based opinion.. it does not exist in a vacuum, but is a result of your lifetime observations, instruction, & experiences. Now, if you were to MANDATE belief in your 'theory', you would be wrong. It is obviously something that is NOT proven science, but is a belief. But there are many things that fit within this same belief pattern. Teaching as fact young earth creationism, is the same thing, as is teaching as fact the 'big bang'. These are both belief systems. IMO, as someone who values the scientific method, & examines the evidence for claims, agw & even macro evolution are in this same category. Yet the academic establishment MANDATES teaching these things as proven fact. Plausible explanations for the unknown are fine for sci fi stories, or speculations about origins, or challenging dogmatism.. but they are TERRIBLE if they become mandated truth. They do violence to the scientific method, & kill inquiry with brow beating & ridicule. agreed. There is nothing wrong with making a hypothesis, then looking for data that supports it, but if you suppress data that does not fit, or distort it for an agenda, then it becomes propaganda, not science. btw, sorry for the multiple posts.. i have a small window of posting time, with work & all, so my responses tend to be lumped together.. sorry!
No, I am relying on the FACT that organic molecules have been discovered within cometary fragments. I am relying on the FACT that exo-planets have been discovered within the Habitable Zone Distance from their suns. I am relying on the FACT that our observations have proven that our sun is run of the mill, dime a dozen within our galaxay let alone the galactic cluster or universe. I am relying on the FACT that given the size of the universe, the number of galaxies, the number of stars the PROBABLILTY of other life near as makes no difference is 100%. You make a small mistake, its not that there isn't any scientific proof of alien life, its simply that the scientific evidence so far uncovered is not definitive, merely indicative. The aliens have technology to wrap or fold time/space, that's how they travel in space. Like from point A to point B, the fastest way is not a straight line, it is when you fold two points together like a string in your hands, point A and point B touch, there, the alien craft go through the two locations, no matter how vast they are, in no time. So it is highly likely that the Alien visits the earth. And that's the advanced science that our scientists have no knowledge of, therefore they can't even apply their scientific methods to prove it or not. All they do is to deny it. But it doesn't mean it's not possible. It's very possible to advanced aliens, just not us.[/QUOTE] You seem to confuse Science Fiction, Hollywood and Science and seem to confuse postulation with fact. FTL travel thru wormholes is nothing more than speculation. This speculation may have some scientific parameters, but to this point it is essentially nothing more than the equivalent of scientific wishful thinking and is utilized mostly as a plot device. The exact same can be said for warp drive, subspace, hyperspace, and all the other creative speculative methods of FTL travel.
You miss the main point. Mainstream scientists ALWAYS alter their position when confronted with peer reviewed evidence contradicting or even competely trashing their original views. That is a fundamental aspect of what science is all about. And wonder of wonders, the fact that science does not have all the answers is its principle motivation. As to the scientific method, I should remind you that it is a process which has yielded 99% of the entire body of our scientific knowledge and ALL of our technology for the past three hundred or so years. Science knows an enormous amount about our history and is learning more and more each year. Science does know quite a bit about UFOs, its just that so far they have failed to identify ANY as extraterrestrial technology operated by alien lifeforms. As to religion, it is a philosophy mandating a belief in the supernatural and demanding faith in the absence of evidence - antithetical to science.
The problem with that theory is that corn and wheat growers make more money if we buy more meat. Takes a lot more corn to make a pound of steak than it does to make a pound of corn meal.
Those aren't proofs. Those are observations and predictions based on observations. I agree that there is extraterrestrial life. I just don't think that it will ever interact with earth. UFOs exist, but they aren't alien spacecraft. They are things that people see that they can't identify.
But I do have scientific evidence to support my belief that extra terrestrial life exists. Apparently you are not aware of recent discoveries in cosmology, nor in the application of probability in this regard. 1. organic compounds discovered in cometary and meteoric fragments. 2. exo-planets discoved in the liquid water habitable zone of their sun. 3. probablity within the universe approaches mathematical certainty to name but a few of pieces of supporting hard evidence. Granted its not definitive, but it is more than sufficient for me to believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe. It is a conclusion sans faith. It is not a scientific "theory", it is an opinion based on a variety of supporting scientific evidence, which is univerally acknowledged as non-definitive. As to comparing young earthers to believers in the big bang, it appears you are not all that science "savvy". there is a MULTITUDE of evidence to support the big bang theory (as it happens a very good example of a scientific theory). From detection of the residual background radiation, to the mathematical modeling, to the recent discovery of the predicted gavitational waves. That is why its a bone fide theory. The young earthers are not scientists nor is their belief a scientific theory. This ridiculous notion is a classic example of faith over fact. I do not believe you value the scientific method nor have a basic understanding of what a scientific theory actually is. Anthropogenic contributions to climate change is a FACT. Likewise evolution is a scientific FACT. Like many, you appear to not be able to comprehend the distinction between accepted scientific theory and speculative hypothesis. For instance, if Einstiens theory of relativity didn't deal in actual facts we wouldn't have nuclear energy and abombs. We wouldn't be approaching the harnessing of fusion power. Your ridiculous reference to accepted scientific theories being merely "plausible" explanations demonstrates a rather huge hole in your understanding. Science has no trouble in correct itself if proven wrong. The history of scientific discovery demonstrates this without any doubt.
Elitism is about power over other humans and is at the core of the moronic anti-science crowd as it is with the science crowd and the right wing crowd and the left wing crowd and the academic crowd and just about every other power bloc in existence, including the religious crowd. Elitism arises when ever humans exhibit their bigotted conceit, regardless of their politics or philosophy. My reference to elitism being central to the advancement of science is predicated on academic/intellectual elitism. An elitism that gives way to scientific FACT. History proves that the scientific establishment eventually ALWAYS accepts scientific facts. Is that because of the dumbing down of the education itself or social/cultural issues amongst today's youth? There appears to be a direct correlation between decreased school and parental discipline and academic performance. In my day, when a student was not performing both the teacher AND the parents blamed the student. today, its the "system" and the teacher who get the blame because daddy's little girl can do no wrong. Huh? do you have any evidence to support your accusation that the euphamistic "inner city schools" contribute to the rise of anti-science? From my observations the anti-science crowd consists mostly of conservative, white, middle aged, christian, bible literalists living in rural, suburban areas, being manipulated by the rich white conservative elite. I won't bother commenting on your contemporary comparison to the academic/economic/political infrastructure of medieval europe. Institutional atheism & secular humanism ruling the roost seems a ridiculous exaggeration considering you live in a nation where 80% of its citizens claim to be christian, while only 2% claim to be atheists. Where is the evidence to support your claim that open enquiry is being crushed on the alter of dogmatic compliance? I find that to be laughable considering the massive and rapid advances in science that have been and are taking place daily.
are you suggesting that there is no proof that distilled water boils at 100C at sea level? Or that the laws of thermodynamics have not been proven? There are plenty of scientific facts that have been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. I agree.
They must have knowledge in able to fly any military crafts. Not really, most of the sightings are from people who do look at the sky a lot, have you check out youtube lately?
It has nothing to do with doomsday. Global warming hoax is a scheme that try to tax the world population and pull them under the control of UN. The paid Scientists who are involved with this are the black sheep shamed all other scientists.
I agree with the first part, science needs moral frame(religion), otherwise it's destruction to human eventually. I would like to modify the second part, religion don't need science, because modern science can't prove or explain religion. However, the Advanced science, on the other hand, can explain and prove religion. " All advanced science is indistinguishable from magic." Now, We religion people, finally, can have advanced science provide answers. Science without religion is lame. Religion without ADVANCED science is blind.
Those aren't proofs, they are facts. Science doesn't deal in proofs. It deals in observations and predictions. Scientific proof does not and cannot exist. Claiming scientific proof is unscientific. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
Any different voices, they category them as heretics, suppress them, so tyrannical. The term "elite pseudo scientists" you used on them is very appropriated. They actually slow down the development of science. Statistics show that american education is very clearly 'dumbing down'. Basic literacy is not even met, much less more advanced concepts like critical thinking or the scientific method. Inner city schools are growing examples of the rise of anti science. Rather than face the facts of their policy failures, they 'redefine' what success is. Literacy in basic things like math or even reading are glossed over for social redefinitions & promotion of grievance, instead of equipping young people to function in a technological world. That's how I feel about modern pseudo science. Crushing free thinking and all other inquiries are most un-scientific. They fail to mention that it is their limited understanding and knowledge that's the problem from the start. It confuse me here, what pseudo science .... The elite ones or the Advanced alien science? They didn't say we don't know, they arrogantly claim they don't exist. Which doesn't make sense, since they can't disapprove it in the first place. Why such assurrence? And laugh at us. Very unsatisfying. But they won't come out honestly say and admit that we have limited knowledge, the universe is so big that there are a lot of thing we still can't explain. They just deny it, which is rude. I wonder if this "authority" building the elite scientists on purpose. What they actually have is different than what they allowed to come out to the public. I feel most of us are second citizens or something.
Many "anti Science" folks are more Science savey than the Science they oppose. Science has become political. Scientist are whores. Sure there are many of the "anti Science" crowd who are just "old time Science" peoples. And who calls them, Anti Science. Yup ! The bought and paid for Scientist. HAVE I got a new vaccination for you to require on everyone. Aaahhhh, The Science of Profits. Moi No More Paul Muni playing Louis Pasteur No
Wonder what's their aim for being anti-science....it make a lot of people angry, for both other scientists and the general public.
That's not far off from what I was saying, really. Yes, scientists are ceasing to behave as scientists when they go out and promote these global warming / climate change claims the way the politicians have been doing, and so they shame their profession and themselves, and they are doing no favors for science in general in the eyes of the lay-public. I also see the "hoax" as designed to increase government power and monetary intake. People get filthy rich in government for a reason..
