- Last post
- 873 Responses
Is not a belief system.
If it turns out we create reality through our own consciousness and life is but a dream, then yes science is a belief system.
Until then, I agree.
correct, it's not a belief system, it's a method of asking and answering questions, a search for knowledge.
It's a flexible, evidence-based belief system at a push
- I want to like this guy, but find him to be an arrogant asshat.utopian
- His head is in ultra fast flight. That's all I know about him. I like him.CyBrainX
- You looks like him, CyBrainXmonospaced
- Bill Nye? I've not seen much of him, but arrogant? Because he talks facts? Truth isn't arrogant.Luda
- If only my disembodied countenance could achieve warp speed...CyBrainX
Science cannot explain 95% of the universe(s).
Science is dogmatic and closed minded.
Wait is this actually a discussion that is going on in the states? Seriously? The moran level is high.
What are you crackahs goign on 'bout?
Richard Dawkins really gets on my tits.
Science cannot explain 95% of the universe(s) yet, because science doesn't pretend to know. If it doesn't know, it won't invent some bullshit either.
Science is the opposite of close minded, science is open to change it's mind at any given moment. A good recent example is the change of Pluto to a minor-planet. It was a planet since forever, I learned it was a planet in school, but with recent discoveries telling otherwise, the scientific community changed it's mind.
What do you have to say about that Morning_star?
- Obviously you live in a test tube of ideology and not the real world. science politicsyurimon
- and militarization of science will solve our problems.yurimon
- that is such a crap example - a minor object in our solar system thats clasification has no impact on anything.fadein11
- that means that science isn't written in stone, it changes based on facts and discoveries.ESKEMA
- lol - trust me it takes a lot for new ideas to be accepted or to replace old ones - read more sicence books.fadein11
Well Eskema, i'm glad you asked.
Science, in particularly THEORETICAL physics in recent years have INVENTED dark matter, dark energy, alternate universes to explain and support it's current theories and experiments. In doing so, the mass of the universe (a universal constant) is being increased and revised regularly to account for the fluctuating energy values. YET however unlikely or theoretical a multiverse (for example) is, alternative and non-materialistic theories and proposals are routinely rejected even though irrefutable evidence exists.
- dark matter, dark energy etc are just other words for magic. Basically they have no fucking idea.set
- you sound stupid, they didn't invent it, they theorize that it should exist, if they find proof of otherwise, I'm sure they'llESKEMA
- move on, they won't be stuck on it.ESKEMA
- what irrefutable evidences are those?ESKEMA
- Hah. Invented.
No, still theory. Working theory.
And what was that about being back on earth, now again? ;)Peter
True, Not a belief system. Yet someone must believe it is not.
I like your young idealistic ways. keep it up.
Its going to save us...
Hi. I'm science and I'm here to help...
- Easy tiger. Don't get all Aluminum Hat on us.Morning_star
- Dont worry what you ignore now will keep you safe in the future.yurimon
- Normally, there's a religious nut firing those things in the name of it's god, just sayin'...ESKEMA
- 1. this isn't so much science as it is technology. 2. science is a tool, not the result. when you strike someone with a hammer you don't blame the hammer.scarabin
- you don't blame the hammer, you blame the person wielding itscarabin
- EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!pango
You think scientists invented dark matter and alternate universes to explain and support their theories and that pisses you off? First off, there are people working on this all over the planet and their theories often contradict as they search for answers. Bit trust me, they didn't invent those things, they only found evidence for them in the name of progress and knowledge.
Can you honestly think that scientific theories about existence are inferior to INVENTING a man in the clouds who is responsible instead? There's no evidence for that, yet you believe blindly. It's incredibly hypocritical. At least the world of science is looking for answers instead of dwelling on a childish guess from thousands of years ago.
Mono, who mentioned god? I didn't.
Can you SHOW me some dark matter? or Dark energy or the Graviton, or an alternative universe?
or evidence for the existence of them that isn't a probability?
- What are the odds of that happening?yurimon
- The original OP mentioned god by tying this into religion. I can't show you dark matter, but the evidence for that mass is overwhelming.monospaced
- mass is overwhelming. Likewise, can you show me evidence for god that isn't just a supernatural myth?monospaced
- Of course you can't. You just take it on faith. Science doesn't have the answers, it's just looking.monospaced
- No one mentioned religion either. The first post mentions belief not religion. It's very different.Morning_star
- fair enoughmonospaced
Because after all Mono, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I love science, but the way the masses approaches it is just wrong, you can't come out and say we know everything, science is perfect and can do no wrong,
that's bullshit, yet it is the attitude I see everyday on the web, and please don't put me in the same category of other users because I express a diverging point of view,
I feel it's just wrong to never talk about the fraud that passes as done deal, the peer reviewed paper who never were peer reviewed, the obscure financing practices, the experimental research on humans, etc...
being a scientist doesn't make you better nor more special than anyone else, so a little bit of scrutiny would be appreciated,
let me close my rant with a quote from one of the greatest mind of the last century. when he realized what he had accomplished..
"We knew the world would not be the same. Few people laughed, few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."
- Robert Oppenheimer
- I agree with this, why would we put you in a category for saying it?ESKEMA
- * tilt tin foil hat
"because when you criticize science, you're automatically labelled a retarded creationistGeorgesIV
- This is precisely why for many, science is definitely a belief system.mrrgl
- at least it makes sense!monospaced
- Those problems are people / society related. Not science. It just happens that scientists are humans and there is alsoESKEMA
- Stupid scientists. Nothing new there...ESKEMA
- you see, you will never accept that some science is flawed, how can you not say it's belief based.. do you even see it?GeorgesIV
- people are flawedscarabin
how is this not a belief system if they don't even question themselves or the scientific method..
"Scientific skepticism is the noble pursuit and accumulation of evidence, based on the scientific method, which is used to question and doubt claims and assertions. A scientific skeptic will hold the accumulation of evidence as fundamentally critical to the examining of claims. Moreover, a true skeptic does not accept all evidence as being equal in quality, but, in fact, will give more weight to evidence which is derived from the scientific method and less weight to poorly obtained and poorly scrutinized evidence."
thread trending.. thread trending...