Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ironic, because you just described every religion in the same statement.
Ironic, because you just described every religion in the same statement.
You made (or supported) the claim that "bad science is better than magic."
Do you grasp the depth of your stupidity?
Magic supposes no logical support, therefor rational people reject it. Science claims factual support, bad science is fraud and may cause rational people to accept falsehoods.
When you support a conclusion before the evidence, you twist the evidence to support the conclusion.
Science is about twisting the theory to suite the evidence. If it is bad science, it isn't science at all. It's pseudo science.
I suggest you start doing some research into what the definition of science is before making claims about the nature of it.
When you support a conclusion before the evidence, you twist the evidence to support the conclusion.
Science is about twisting the theory to suite the evidence. If it is bad science, it isn't science at all. It's pseudo science.
I suggest you start doing some research into what the definition of science is before making claims about the nature of it.
Did you even bother to read the case?
This is about fraud, the deliberate falsification of data in exchange for payment. Just like over at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit - flat out and deliberate fraud.
Science is a process, a means of discovery and validation. When the process is defrauded, the damage is often catastrophic.
Let's not try to change the subject.
Your sarcastic original post suggested that Einstein couldn't be in error.
He was.
As you are.
Your comment about physicists is true of some...but the provenance of this and an earlier thread is that there are those who insist on attacking the community of faith.
1. In 2007, physicist Steven Weinberg addressed the Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. He was warmly applauded.
2. Christopher Hitchens wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!
Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other gifts of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.
3. Sam Harris, in Letters to a Christian Nation, writes that qualms about stem-cell research are obscene, because they are morally indefensible because they represent mere faith-based irrationality. Can you say slippery-slope?
4. I'm sure you are familiar with Dawkins, Stengler, and others who have written books in the same vein.
Why the gratuitious attacks?
Let me suggest an answer: because these atheist scientists demand acquiescence to their views...and the majority of Americans have a very different view.
Funny, you are talking to us through a device made by those same atheists, enjoy your new knowledge!
Without science, mankind probably would of died off thousands of years ago. It doesn't take a 10 year old to figure why that statement is a truism.
You are describing 'science'. Theories, hypothesis and conjecture are constantly riddled with inquiries, experiments and duplicatable outcomes and results.Absolutely.
Not that it means that we should discard the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. But what I'm trying to get across is that just because somebody SAYS something has been "scientifically proven" doesn't mean it has, or that there isn't more to learn, or that it won't be disproven later down the road.
There is no settled theory. Only settled law.
Even that is subject to change based on new information. Never forget that.
You are describing 'science'. Theories, hypothesis and conjecture are constantly riddled with inquiries, experiments and duplicatable outcomes and results.
There is no settled theory. Only settled law.
Even that is subject to change based on new information. Never forget that.
Exactly! Science is the never ending striving for facts. Not the Truth (whatever that may be). If you want to discuss the Truth go talk to a philosopher.
When you support a conclusion before the evidence, you twist the evidence to support the conclusion.
Science is about twisting the theory to suite the evidence. If it is bad science, it isn't science at all. It's pseudo science.
I suggest you start doing some research into what the definition of science is before making claims about the nature of it.
Did you even bother to read the case?
This is about fraud, the deliberate falsification of data in exchange for payment. Just like over at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit - flat out and deliberate fraud.
Science is a process, a means of discovery and validation. When the process is defrauded, the damage is often catastrophic.
I agree, it is no longer science at that point though. The definition no longer applies.
Just another corrupt human being corrupt, using real science as a scapegoat for money. It's a mockery of actual science and real scientists who work incredibly hard to find the truth.
Even that is subject to change based on new information. Never forget that.
Exactly! Science is the never ending striving for facts. Not the Truth (whatever that may be). If you want to discuss the Truth go talk to a philosopher.
Truth is a matter of contention, facts are NOT.
Fiddlesticks. Truth and fact are the same things.
It's like pretending there's a difference between faith in God, and faith in a theory, to pretend truth and fact are different.
Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".
"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."
Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters
Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".
"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."
Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters
OMG...this just proved that ALL Science is fake
I guess it also shows that if Priests, Rabbis, Pastors and Televangelists engage in unethical activities then God must be fake too
Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".
"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."
Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters
OMG...this just proved that ALL Science is fake
I guess it also shows that if Priests, Rabbis, Pastors and Televangelists engage in unethical activities then God must be fake too
It's a fallacy of equivocation and use of an argument called "Poisoning the Well."
Basically means she attacks the character of the person when it is irrelevant to the science. Then uses an equivocation fallacy to apply it to all scientists.
In order for this not to be a fallacy, you would have to provide supporting evidence that clearly demonstrates every single scientist in the world takes part in this behavior.
OMG...this just proved that ALL Science is fake
I guess it also shows that if Priests, Rabbis, Pastors and Televangelists engage in unethical activities then God must be fake too
It's a fallacy of equivocation and use of an argument called "Poisoning the Well."
Basically means she attacks the character of the person when it is irrelevant to the science. Then uses an equivocation fallacy to apply it to all scientists.
In order for this not to be a fallacy, you would have to provide supporting evidence that clearly demonstrates every single scientist in the world takes part in this behavior.
Don't worry, I'm sure the next time a preacher lies Kosher will be on here talking about religion as a fraud and how nobody should be listening to any preachers.
Oh and it put a ear to ear smile on my face the way she said faith and common sense are interchangeable.
I know the following will challenge the attention spans of PoliticalChic and particularly koshergrl, but I will continue my practice of reinforcing my message through repetition, and using as many descriptive terms as necessary to make my points clear, and to disarm the predictably mendacious shenanigans that intellectually dishonest retards like PoliticalChic and koshergrl are so fond of engaging in when their carefully insulated stupidity is exposed. (For example, after having to refer to a dictionary every other time I use a three-syllable word, these two retards have invented the notion that I consider myself an "intellectual" evidenced by my vocabulary--which the average 10th grader should be comfortable with. koshergrl has even gone so far as to imagine that I consider myself a "word-smith." There is no doubt that these two have VERY active imaginations.) At the risk of fueling their delusions about my opinion of myself, it's clearly time to hold the chubby little hands of these two retards, who just can't accept that intellectual foundations of religion and science are entirely different things, and explain to them the facts of reality.
I will start out with small ideas that should not be unwieldly for the small minds of PoliticalChic and koshergrl. Let's talk about "belief."Belief is simply the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing.This shouldn't be terribly controversial; but it doesn't speak to the strength of that conviction, the degree of certainty, the source or foundation for either the conviction or the certainty. Clearly there is room for more precise terms that describe different kinds of belief. So let me introduce "rational-belief."Rational-belief is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, has been established. Furthermore, rational-beliefs are validated by verifiable evidence and valid logic (i.e. objective reality).This shouldn't be terribly controversial either; it allows for the rationality of beliefs based on incomplete data or held in ignorance of pertinent information; while providing the means to sustain a rational set of beliefs through amending, or revising one's beliefs to conform with (perhaps more) valid logic applied to (perhaps better or more complete) verifiable evidence.
What then of beliefs for which support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, has NOT been established? Let me introduce the term "faith."Faith is the conviction of unqualified certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Furthermore, faith is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and valid logic; the resolute strength of that denial is the "validating" quality of faith.Again, this shouldn't be terribly controversial; among the faithful, there is no uncertainty in the existence of their "God" thing, or any of the various powers He has or the deeds He has performed. Convictions such as these are held with unconditional certainty, and are achieved by an act of will that requires no reference to, no support in, no establishment upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it requires only unwavering commitment. These convictions--these commitments--are the unquestioned foundations that the faithful evaluate every argument and evidence against.
Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. And every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty as religion does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, PoliticalChic's religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that PoliticalChic (and apparently Berlinski) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. PoliticalChic's (and apparently Berlinski's) argument collapses upon it's strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
I don't understand what this has to do with religion vs. science....
What it does is weaken the argument that when scientists speaketh, it is only truth, facts, that passeth their lips.
There are scientists who lie for money and career, some who will construct bizarre scenarios in the name of science, some who toil lifelong in attempts to benefit humanity.
Some, all three, as in a Venn Diagram.
Funny, you are talking to us through a device made by those same atheists, enjoy your new knowledge!
Without science, mankind probably would of died off thousands of years ago. It doesn't take a 10 year old to figure why that statement is a truism.
Rational science doesn't truly exist till around 500 years ago. Archimedes and Pliny were the beginning of it, but true science doesn't begin till the Renaissance. So thousands of years is way off the mark. However, science makes it possible for billions of us to live on this planet in the here and now.
There is no disputing that.
OMG...this just proved that ALL Science is fake
I guess it also shows that if Priests, Rabbis, Pastors and Televangelists engage in unethical activities then God must be fake too
OMG...this just proved that ALL Science is fake
I guess it also shows that if Priests, Rabbis, Pastors and Televangelists engage in unethical activities then God must be fake too
So you're saying science is just as fake as god?
