Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[LOki]

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.

1. First, let’s establish the kind of low-level individual you are, Lowest…these aspersion form your post:
a. “…challenge the attention spans…”
b. “…Mendacious…”
c. “…intellectually dishonest…”
d. “…retards…”
e. “…stupidity…”
f. “….having to refer to a dictionary…”
g. “…small minds…”

First let's establish that you have no valid means to refute the content or conclusion of my post; if you had, you'd have employed them--so you've opted to critique my style and apply bold denial of reality instead.

It's just hilarious that you're about to confirm the validity of each "aspersion" you have a need to criticize.

2. When one constantly attempts to paint opponents in the above terms, with, of course, no indicia of any of it, it leads to the following conjecture: said individual must have been exposed interminably to these appellations by individuals from whom one should have received love and respect.

a. When one has grown up with love and respect, it is the way one confronts the world.

b. In your case, one can see how difficult it is to break free of one’s psychological nurture.

3. Pathetic as you are, Lowest, were I a better person, I would spend more time with you, offering to condole. Sadly, I find you abhorrent, as did others, evidenced by all of the marks you bear from ten-foot poles.

4. But, I appreciate the definitions you have provided, as, in conjunction with my post #23, they certainly prove my contentions.
See, you are good for something!

And now that we've achieved the end of your critique, we can see that it's only through an intentional denial of reality that you can claim that I proved, rather than refuted, your contentions in your post #23.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Logic eludes you once again.

ROFL

Isn't it time for you to go light incense to Gaia? The polar ice caps might melt if you don't....

 

[koshergrl]

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 think you have me mixed up with somebody else.

And I've no doubt that those around you are used to your insane and illogical fits of giggling.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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 think you have me mixed up with somebody else.

And I've no doubt that those around you are used to your insane and illogical fits of giggling.

You made the connection of one scientist lying as to why everyone with common sense should deny science.

Emotional diatribe, it's as if that's all your keybroad is capable of letting you type.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Seems to me most scientists are not Republicans.

Reason for this is twofold:
a) most Republicans care only about money, and anyone who can get a PhD in a pure science has the brains to make a lot more money elsewhere. Scientific research is the road to a decent living, not the road to riches.
b) Republicans distrust science


But what's funny is they USE the fact there aren't as many righties in science as lefties as evidence that science should be distrusted. its circular reasoning. Its like saying "I don't want to join your club because I don't want to join your club"

Granted, I base my assumption that most of them are not Republicans on the fact that out of perhaps 3 or 4 times in my 8 years studying physics that politics (outside of the department) was even brought up at all, it seemed those who brought it up leaned left. Its generally just not discussed.

 

[kiwiman127]

Seems to me most scientists are not Republicans.

Reason for this is twofold:
a) most Republicans care only about money, and anyone who can get a PhD in a pure science has the brains to make a lot more money elsewhere. Scientific research is the road to a decent living, not the road to riches.
b) Republicans distrust science


But what's funny is they USE the fact there aren't as many righties in science as lefties as evidence that science should be distrusted. its circular reasoning. Its like saying "I don't want to join your club because I don't want to join your club"

Granted, I base my assumption that most of them are not Republicans on the fact that out of perhaps 3 or 4 times in my 8 years studying physics that politics (outside of the department) was even brought up at all, it seemed those who brought it up leaned left. Its generally just not discussed.

Didn't you know that onlly 6% of scientist are Republicans? (that's according to either Truthmatters or rdean)

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Seems to me most scientists are not Republicans.

Reason for this is twofold:
a) most Republicans care only about money, and anyone who can get a PhD in a pure science has the brains to make a lot more money elsewhere. Scientific research is the road to a decent living, not the road to riches.
b) Republicans distrust science


But what's funny is they USE the fact there aren't as many righties in science as lefties as evidence that science should be distrusted. its circular reasoning. Its like saying "I don't want to join your club because I don't want to join your club"

Granted, I base my assumption that most of them are not Republicans on the fact that out of perhaps 3 or 4 times in my 8 years studying physics that politics (outside of the department) was even brought up at all, it seemed those who brought it up leaned left. Its generally just not discussed.

Didn't you know that onlly 6% of scientist are Republicans? (that's according to either Truthmatters or rdean)

It wouldn't surprise me. Republicans would not choose the path of less money. It would violate their conception of an ideal market and their heads would explode. They also generally distrust science.


Though I would bet that a far greater percentage than 6% of scientists have voted for Republican candidates at one time or another - if you told me only 6% were registered Republicans I wouldn't be terribly surprised - esp. if you include only scientists in academia.

 

[westwall]

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.

No, they're not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It wouldn't surprise me. Republicans would not choose the path of less money. It would violate their conception of an ideal market and their heads would explode.

Do you have that tattooed on the inside of your colon walls? That way your eyes are always on it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It wouldn't surprise me. Republicans would not choose the path of less money. It would violate their conception of an ideal market and their heads would explode.

Do you have that tattooed on the inside of your colon walls? That way your eyes are always on it.

? WTF ?

Early in the day to start drinking don't you think?

 

[westwall]

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.

Not quite!

History of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look up the definition of "Rational Science". And really, you need to stop using wiki as a source.

 

[westwall]

Seems to me most scientists are not Republicans.

Reason for this is twofold:
a) most Republicans care only about money, and anyone who can get a PhD in a pure science has the brains to make a lot more money elsewhere. Scientific research is the road to a decent living, not the road to riches.
b) Republicans distrust science


But what's funny is they USE the fact there aren't as many righties in science as lefties as evidence that science should be distrusted. its circular reasoning. Its like saying "I don't want to join your club because I don't want to join your club"

Granted, I base my assumption that most of them are not Republicans on the fact that out of perhaps 3 or 4 times in my 8 years studying physics that politics (outside of the department) was even brought up at all, it seemed those who brought it up leaned left. Its generally just not discussed.

Didn't you know that onlly 6% of scientist are Republicans? (that's according to either Truthmatters or rdean)

It wouldn't surprise me. Republicans would not choose the path of less money. It would violate their conception of an ideal market and their heads would explode. They also generally distrust science.


Though I would bet that a far greater percentage than 6% of scientists have voted for Republican candidates at one time or another - if you told me only 6% were registered Republicans I wouldn't be terribly surprised - esp. if you include only scientists in academia.

It was a pretty poor excuse for a poll if you ever bother to look into it. And I will agree most Liberal Arts majors are Democrat, but most engineering degrees and hard sciences I would say are Republican. I was very much the odd man out in my Dept. All of the Earth Scientists I worked with were Republicans.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It wouldn't surprise me. Republicans would not choose the path of less money. It would violate their conception of an ideal market and their heads would explode.

Do you have that tattooed on the inside of your colon walls? That way your eyes are always on it.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Uncensored2008 again."




LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Didn't you know that onlly 6% of scientist are Republicans? (that's according to either Truthmatters or rdean)

It wouldn't surprise me. Republicans would not choose the path of less money. It would violate their conception of an ideal market and their heads would explode. They also generally distrust science.


Though I would bet that a far greater percentage than 6% of scientists have voted for Republican candidates at one time or another - if you told me only 6% were registered Republicans I wouldn't be terribly surprised - esp. if you include only scientists in academia.

It was a pretty poor excuse for a poll if you ever bother to look into it. And I will agree most Liberal Arts majors are Democrat, but most engineering degrees and hard sciences I would say are Republican. I was very much the odd man out in my Dept. All of the Earth Scientists I worked with were Republicans.

Didn't say engineers, did I? I said scientists. In particular those in academia.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

Not quite!

History of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look up the definition of "Rational Science". And really, you need to stop using wiki as a source.

For everything there is a starting point. It may not suit you but to a majority of historians, science, started in the Middle Ages. Primitive science? Yes, I'm not denying it was primitive, but so was the first auto, plane, computer, medicine, theories of Earth, the Solar System and other very early inventions and discoveries.

 

[westwall]

It wouldn't surprise me. Republicans would not choose the path of less money. It would violate their conception of an ideal market and their heads would explode. They also generally distrust science.


Though I would bet that a far greater percentage than 6% of scientists have voted for Republican candidates at one time or another - if you told me only 6% were registered Republicans I wouldn't be terribly surprised - esp. if you include only scientists in academia.

It was a pretty poor excuse for a poll if you ever bother to look into it. And I will agree most Liberal Arts majors are Democrat, but most engineering degrees and hard sciences I would say are Republican. I was very much the odd man out in my Dept. All of the Earth Scientists I worked with were Republicans.

Didn't say engineers, did I? I said scientists. In particular those in academia.

Engineers aren't scientists? Really? Geologists aren't scientists?

 

[westwall]

Not quite!

History of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look up the definition of "Rational Science". And really, you need to stop using wiki as a source.

For everything there is a starting point. It may not suit you but to a majority of historians, science, started in the Middle Ages. Primitive science? Yes, I'm not denying it was primitive, but so was the first auto, plane, computer, medicine, theories of Earth, the Solar System and other very early inventions and discoveries.

Primitive science didn't, and more importantly can't, do what you claimed. Modern science is the only thing that has improved human life span.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

No, they're not.

According to Merriam-Webster, they are.
Truth:

"the state of being the case: FACT."
Truth - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Fact:

"
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact : in truth "

Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[koshergrl]

And they are synonyms:

"
truth [trooth]

Main Entry: truth  [trooth] Part of Speech: noun Definition: reality, validity Synonyms: accuracy, actuality, authenticity, axiom, case, certainty, correctness, dope*, exactitude, exactness, fact, facts, factualism, factuality, factualness, genuineness, gospel truth, gospel, honest truth, infallibility, inside track, legitimacy, maxim, naked truth, nitty-gritty, perfection, picture, plain talk, precision, principle, rectitude, rightness, scoop, score, trueness, truism, truthfulness, unvarnished truth, veracity, verisimilitude, verity, whole story Antonyms: falsehood, invention, untruth "

Truth Synonyms, Truth Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Yes, kosher girl settled that

We can't trust in science and we can't trust in god