Science often as contradictory as religion.

I am a science junky, however I proceed with caution. Even within the scientific community there are so many contradictory studies. Am I supposed to jump on every bandwagon and say it's fact? Just one example about studies in consciousness:

theglobalelite.org...

www.sciencedaily.com...

I wouldn't "jump on any bandwagon" simply based on the claims of a study.

Their could be something wrong with the methodology of the way a study (any study) was conducted, or their could be some problems in the logic and/or critical thinking used by the researchers to reach their conclusions.

However, if the study can hold up under the scrutiny of critical thought and of science, then it is something that you could possibly believe to be accurate.

a reply to: TheChrome

Science changes and evolves, its based on observation and this can change the science. It's why they have to redo museums and other scientific displays.

Collective Conscience may be absolutely true but hasn't been proven by science yet. Religion is rigid, unless a new religion comes along, science changes.

Science is a religion for the Godless. Man has a quest to become Godlike (Freemasons).

a reply to: LDragonFire

Science never changes...

Scientific Theories, Hypothesis, and the like change..

Science is the process, not the answer.

If you say "science says this." You are religious.

I find it very strange that SpaceX has such a failure rate .You would think that having all the knowledge and procedures already established scientifically that it would have no need to learn how to do what they are trying to do . Is it just bad luck or bad science ?

a reply to: Reverbs

The "Science" taught in public school in the 50's or 60's isn't the same "science" they teach today.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Reverbs

The "Science" taught in public school in the 50's or 60's isn't the same "science" they teach today.

You are talking about facts or history not science.

Science IS:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

We are ALL scientists.

If a scientist tells you a fact, he has become a historian or a mystic in that moment. Science moves on and that mystic can too, but sometimes they do not.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: TheChrome

Science changes and evolves, its based on observation and this can change the science. It's why they have to redo museums and other scientific displays.

Collective Conscience may be absolutely true but hasn't been proven by science yet. Religion is rigid, unless a new religion comes along, science changes.

I think science changes and evolves based on the entities or people funding the grants that pay scientist's salaries to skew their results in favor of the ones paying them.

a reply to: TheChrome

Consciousness is difficult even define scientifically, let alone measure..

I'm not sure you can claim "science often as contradictory as religion" with the example used above.. once a scientific consensus is reached on a theory or topic there generally is very little contradiction. If some are found, new theories or amendments to existing theories are proposed and investigated.

The nature of scientific method seeks to resolve contradictions with established theories and models. Religion on the other hand tends to split into seperate branches that maintain and enforce the contradictions, doing little or nothing resolve them.

a reply to: spygeek

Which is why "scientists" are not looking into consciousness scientifically.. Most of their religious thinking split off, and it won't come to any agreements.

Scientists on the other hand, are trying to figure out what is consciousness..

I actually see religion of say bible, or hinduism, being met with materialism.. Through science, not religion of course..

keep looking and find less and less, until you see yourself in the mirror..

What in the world neo??

I was just speaking on my own religion of course. That was not science..

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I find it very strange that SpaceX has such a failure rate .You would think that having all the knowledge and procedures already established scientifically that it would have no need to learn how to do what they are trying to do . Is it just bad luck or bad science ?

I would look more at Engineering and bad luck more than saying "Oh look a rocket didnt work, we know nothing"

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Reverbs

The "Science" taught in public school in the 50's or 60's isn't the same "science" they teach today.

You are missing "Reverb's" point.

Science is not the things we think we know about the natural world around us. Science is the method and means we use to learn those things.

a reply to: Reverbs

I understand where your coming from, but we don't know all of science so it will change over time, or our understanding of it changes.

OP I'm a big fan of a collective Conscience:

The human collective conscience.

Will our collective conscience cause the end of the world in 2012

I have seen so many interpretations of evidence be exposed over the years that it isn't funny. Research is a tool, it is not a fact. The paramaters of the research and the desire of why the research is done make a difference as to it's outcome.

Both good and evil use science to back what they want it to back. Most evidence can be applied to alternate theories.

Half of the research out there is steered by desire for monetary gain on someone's part. The other half is being steered by those who see the evidence is not right.

Number one thing to look at first, there can be lots of evidence used to show something is real when in essence the whole thing is not even applicable to what they are applying it to. What good does the knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics do if you are cooking a roast in the oven. Follow the recipe.

Throw up a few charts and graphs and some facts and figures and most people will believe what you are presenting. People do not even check the data or evaluate the overall project to decide if it is worth the effort.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Reverbs

I understand where your coming from, but we don't know all of science so it will change over time, or our understanding of it changes.

You are agreeing with me, you just don't know it.
Still your word usage is off. Replace the word science which is a noun describing an ACTION (always changing) with a different word like FACTS.

I try not to have religions. My science NEVER changes. MY facts on what reality is ALWAYS change.

I'm very into consciousness studies, and mythologies, and psychologies, psyche, psychic, psychedelic..

Science is what I use to get there. It's just not what SO MANY people call science. They are wrong about the word not me. It's a form of control. People use the word to connect the process which is always correct, to facts, which are correct until they are not.. It's an incongruency I am always aiming to shoot down.

I'm seeing science proving the matrix and God as we speak, but religious people (christians, atheists, materialists, whatever else) can't see the agreements...

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I find it very strange that SpaceX has such a failure rate .You would think that having all the knowledge and procedures already established scientifically that it would have no need to learn how to do what they are trying to do . Is it just bad luck or bad science ?

What established rocket is reusable and lands the first stage?

No one as ever done what they are trying.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I find it very strange that SpaceX has such a failure rate .You would think that having all the knowledge and procedures already established scientifically that it would have no need to learn how to do what they are trying to do . Is it just bad luck or bad science ?

If rocket engineering is so easy, why don't you give it a shot yourself?

In most cases Science is just as bad as religion, as the Academic Cult fights tooth and nail against allot of things. Specifically if some things, like medical science, can be vastly manipulated by research funding sources. They won't get funding if anything profitable is cured. A good example is Marijuana.

I've met four people (one is my childhood friend's mother, second is a night manager) that've cured their cancer from stuff that will not be recognized by doctors. The doctor wanted no part of the night manager's list he received from a customer that cured his cancer, as it would've put him in lawsuit territory. And four different things on the list are totally illegal in the US of A. These are the same people that've whipped the populace into a vaccine craze.

And that's just what I know to be fact, I can't imagine other sciences.

originally posted by: TheChrome
I am a science junky, however I proceed with caution. Even within the scientific community there are so many contradictory studies. Am I supposed to jump on every bandwagon and say it's fact?

Science is not what it used to be. At one time we were taught that "science" is getting the same/expected result under the same condition. Gravity is science because what goes up must go down -- again and again and again. Global warming is not science, because there is no possible way to factor in all potential variables and produce the same results again and again and again.

Consensus is NOT science.