Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

a reply to: Barcs

I didn't say the scientific method itself is flawed. But the research produced using the method and the conclusions we draw from it can be because our understanding is limited.

Just like the X-Files, the truth is out there, but just because you used the scientific method doesn't guarantee that you found it or understand it if you did.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: tanka418

The same scientists rammed the theory of relativity down the publics throats and when has that ever been proven. Verified means conclusively proven. That hasn't happened. If that theory is wrong it means the speed of light isn't limited to C.

Relativity was proven when the first GPS system satellites were put into space. Time is actually slower for those atomic clocks in satellites in orbit that for the same atomic clocks on the ground:

www.metaresearch.org...

a reply to: yuppa

Funding is independent from the scientific method itself. It doesn't matter if you give them 1 dollar or 1 million dollars. If the experiments prove that something beneficial can arise from the research, then it becomes valid whether it's economy, technological or simply just learning about genetics and biology. Obviously I do agree that the government wastes TONS of money funding things that aren't always important for our future, but that's on them, not the scientific method, not the scientists that research it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Barcs
I didn't say the scientific method itself is flawed.

Actually that is exactly what you said:

The process we use to learn about the universe around us is science. That process is one that is often flawed because we don't understand all of what goes on around us in the universe, and we make mistakes.

Science is a method. You are saying that the process we use to learn about the universe isn't the scientific method?

the research produced using the method and the conclusions we draw from it can be because our understanding is limited.

That isn't true. The research produced using the method is solid and verifiable. Every fact is verified through the scientific method. The research is the utilization of this method to find results and see what can be proven about how something functions. You don't have to know everything there is to know to record and test observations.

Just like the X-Files, the truth is out there, but just because you used the scientific method doesn't guarantee that you found it or understand it if you did.

It does verify facts, however. It may not tell the complete full story, but it steers us in the right direction as has been happening for the past couple hundred years with science completely changing the world we live in.

a reply to: tanka418

Actually what you're really saying is that you choose to believe a certain group of people rather than another group...

Facts don't even enter into it.

Jaden

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Again, what is an aetheist?

Someone who understands there is no aether. Count me in!

Gee Whizz, how did this thread get so far, never before in the field of human conflict was so much owed, by so many....to me, professor of everything. I am humbled,

Davis [email protected]

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: tanka418

MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) – Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.

The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.

-- www.newyorker.com...

If this is supposed to be satire; why does it "feel" so right-on?

It seem that increasingly people simply refuse to actually "look" at the reality, the facts, the real world data, and come up with some barely related "notion" of their own...

I guess I'm just some relic of the ancient past; I rely on science, and data for everything.

Most people are in fact "faith-based," not evidence-based thinkers.

Scientific thinking means one purposefully gathers as much data, information, opinions, and facts as they can on any topic, and THEN choose the belief/hypothesis that accounts for all of the verifiable information found so far. If new information is found that violates it, you revisit the hypothesis, change it, or even swap it for a more comprehensive one.

Most people, on the other hand, do the opposite. They just take whatever cultural, religious, familial, or personal beliefs they have been taught or developed and then seek to always find new information to confirm those ideas and often will ignore or fight against any new information.

A scientist practices his craft religiously,and has faith in his intellect. Sounds religious to me. The Religon of Science is real but they will argue its not even though they do some of the same things. The peers are comparable to the PAPAL system an dall scientist down after are comparable to cardinals,and priest. They also collect donations to their Churchs as well. The scientific holy land is Greece where al modern science came from.

Only scientifically illiterate people say what you just said.

Religion equals arguments from authority, from religious texts, from "faith," and so on. Evidence is subverted to match it. Ignored. Everything from dinosaurs to old earth evidence.

Science, when done correctly, is the exact opposite. It focuses on hypotheses that fit the available evidence, and adapts when new evidence comes.

For your information, the difference between philosophy and science is that science developed PRECISELY out of the realization of the limits of logic, individual rationalism, and the impact no matter how smart someone is of bias and so on.

This is precisely why the scientific method developed, for example to COUNTER individual bias, "faith in one self," over-extrapolation, etc etc. There are specific methods meant to counteract the very mind and bias of the scientists. This is ALSO why there is rigorous peer review and replication.

To compare "Faith" and following the "revealed word of god" to having an extremely rigorous process of evaluation, from experimental designs to random assignment to high-level mathematics to peer review and replication, is completely intellectually dishonest and you know it.

If you don't know there is a difference, I think you need more science methodology courses.

It is posts like yours that make me concerned about some of ATS' community.

And it is people like you who the op is referring to.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: tanka418

Actually what you're really saying is that you choose to believe a certain group of people rather than another group...

Facts don't even enter into it.

Jaden

No...what I'm saying is that I saw that article this morning and thought I would post it.

It seems to me that there are an awful lot of people who like to "Jump to conclusions, based on absolutely no data". Just like you did here.

AthlonSavage, I've yet to ever see you present a single iota of evidence to support your ridiculous claims. You're simply a troll and like to be disruptive. You obviously have zero scientific/technical knowledge and know nothing about the scientific method. It's disturbingly clear you have no idea what relativity, and the concepts it's based upon, is about. Yet you have this sick, compulsive desire to deny it and make slanderous statements about it's author. Then, when someone questions your position, you have nothing to add.

Actually, I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to your toxic garbage. All I can suggest to you is perhaps seeking professional guidance - you clearly have issues...

Happy Times

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: tanka418

Actually what you're really saying is that you choose to believe a certain group of people rather than another group...

Facts don't even enter into it.

Jaden

What you forgot to mention...

that one group of people work with data, evidence and facts, while other works on pure belief that papa smurph up in sky made this planet for you in 6 days, and decided to rest every 7th day, day when you pray while he was clear he likes to make it day off?!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

Are you talking about this?
The Speed Of Light Can Vary In A Vacuum

That is one , thanks. There are several more with different methods but all had the same result. The ones that I like are the ones that show the light particles arriving before expected...cant say FTL though as it is light. And Einstein's E=MC2 is close enough for why it is needed. But to say there is nothing that can exceed the speed of light and it is some kind of barrier may become obsolete one day.And that time slows down the closer to the speed of light an object goes..Know how that was supposedly proven? A thread for another day.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

youre a little late on that comment. Go back and re read the interaction with me and the others. Thats whats wrong these days NO ONE READS THE ENTIRE THREAD ANYMORE.

a reply to: yuppa

There is no good reason to use upper case, unless you are really yelling...

As for OP, here is historical and scientific book of future Fact-Resistant Humans use today...

Sounds like Religion, or mid 1900's science.

a reply to: tanka418

There's a ton of them on here that believe in any old horse #

This article must be talking about the hands up don't shoot crowd.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: yuppa

There is no good reason to use upper case, unless you are really yelling...

As for OP, here is historical and scientific book of future Fact-Resistant Humans use today...

You do know sound does not carry over the internet right soooo its not yelling its using EMPHASIS. At least in my case.

a reply to: yuppa


Sorry, I was under impression it was common knowledge....

www.newrepublic.com...

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: tanka418

I rely on science, and data for everything.

sadly...Science doesn't always rely on data like yourself.

Models are a new craze that's sweeping the world.

What utter BS. Models are used to take the current set of facts and theories mix them together and produce a prediction about some event that has not yet occurred. Now as events unfold and the model's prediction is not as expected then the new facts are fed back into the model and it is re-run. This leads to an ever increasing accuracy of the model.

The problem with folks who don't understand science is that they grab the past prediction and use that as "proof" that the models future predictions are incorrect.