It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Debate When You Can't Argue the Facts

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2024 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Lol, it only went cold.

If we're not careful, the idiots that think MAD is the best for humanity will rekindle it...



posted on Mar, 15 2024 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

The book called "the new inquisition", gives a very good overview about the scientific dogmas over time...

It's much more dynamic than say religions, but not as organic as it could be.

As with everything that has great potential to help us but doesn't, the problem is money...




posted on Mar, 15 2024 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Often times scientific facts are confused with just plain simple facts, and it confuses a debate.

A scientific fact needs to be presented in a certain way to hold weight, and not many people can do that, so they go for the "settled science" which is an oxymoron in itself.



posted on Mar, 15 2024 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

"Scientific paradigms are not objective and fixed truths, but rather they are just accepted models of knowledge within particular scientific communities." – Thomas Kuhn



Thomas Kuhn is correct. However conspiracy theories aren't objective and fixed truths either. As a professional scientist, I would never claim that science knows everything there is to know, in fact it probably CAN'T know everything there is to know, if you believe Kurt Godel's proof. Nor would I claim that everything we think we know today won't be changed by new knowledge that comes in tomorrow. All human knowledge--of which Science is a subset--is an iterative process. We take the observable facts we have in front of us today and make up the best explanations for those facts that we can.

The explanations change over time because we discover new facts over time. In the earliest written records, people observed the fact that the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars would rise in the East, transit the sky, and set in the West. At first their explanation was that it was the Gods, chasing each other across the sky. By the first couple of centuries AD, the scholar Ptolemy figured out that there were mathematical patterns to the motions of the various objects, so people changed the explanation from the Gods playing grab-ass with each other to believe that the observable objects were fixed on invisible celestial spheres centered on the Earth. That was a mechanistic explanation instead of a theistic explanation. By the middle of the 1500s Copernicus had figured out there was a simpler mathematical explanation than what Ptolemy had come up with and he put the Sun at the center of the Solar System, not the Earth. About 50 years later, Galileo finally got a telescope that was good enough to see the planets under higher magnification than is available to the unaided eye and realized that other planets had moons around them, that our Moon has mountains on it, that Venus has phases that indicate it orbits the Sun, etc. It was pretty obvious that the new observational facts indicated that Copernicus was probably right. Shortly after that, Kepler had an even better telescope and was able to make measurements and eventually showed that the simplest explanation was that bodies of the Solar System moved in ellipses. About 80 years later, after inventing the mathematical discipline of Calculus and Differential Equations, Newton showed that the elliptical orbits were the natural consequence of assuming the existence of a universal gravitation force between all masses. Another 250 years or so, and Einstein showed that Newton's laws were actually just an approximation of a more general law called General Relativity. Today, Physicists are working on modifying General Relativity to include quantum gravity.

The pattern is pretty clear. Every time a new explanation comes out, it has to take into account the facts behind the previous explanation and show why the new explanation explains things better. That's progress. It doesn't say that we'll ever know everything, but it says we know more stuff today than we did yesterday and will probably know more tomorrow. The reason Science can make that claim is because of the rules we set in place. Probably the most important rule is the principle of falsifiability. Whenever a scientist comes out with a new proposed explanation for something--big or small--he/she has to try to figure out why their explanation is wrong. Only if they can find an evidence-based reason for rejecting those explanations, does their new explanation get to stand. If you have a better plan, this would be a good time to share it.



posted on Mar, 15 2024 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnRepentantHarlequin27
True Science BEGS to be challenged.
It’s a consensus of investigation that makes it so, not a censure of opposition.
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck



Yes, real science is put out there in order to be challenged.

When a theory is tested and shown to hold and can be tested by others with the same results, then a consensus is formed and the theory is now considered a fact. This does not prevent the corruption of science so that it can be used to silence political opposition. IMO, this is similar to how clergy have used biblical verses to silence dissent among the congregation when they may disagree with some preaching. In this age of scientific enlightenment, most people know as much about science as they know about the Bible and are inclined to believe an authority figure like say, Bill Nye, an actor for children's programs and formerly a custodian (I'm a Beakman fan if you couldn't tell).
edit on 3/15/2024 by TheMichiganSwampBuck because: for clarity



posted on Mar, 15 2024 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Boomer1947



If you have a better plan, this would be a good time to share it.


I'm not saying that I know of a better plan, however, because of my studies in postmodernism while attending the university, I feel fairly certain I can't trust my senses or any of the experiences created by them. Due to the human condition, I can never hope to get close to objective reality and science supports this. Science did more than kill God, science killed reality and committed suicide.



posted on Mar, 15 2024 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin

originally posted by: TheMichiganSwampBuck
I do realize that this type of thing has been going on long before I was born. The lab coat wearing actor playing the part of a doctor or scientist has been selling things and ideas since at least the early 20th century. It just seems like its use has become like a weapon these days.


You're telling me !

All of these fake " Doctors " everywhere, yet they remain elusive.

I've seen these doctors names on hundreds of products, but when you try to research them : zilch.

So if anyone has info on the infamous doctors, please let us all know who they really are.

I'm speaking, of course, about Dr. Approuved, and Dr. Recommended.



Dr. Approved and Dr. Recommended have brothers in dentistry, that might be a clue to their identity.

It's usually a male authority figure, however, women are now featured as white lab-coated doctors and dentists. Interesting how I have a couple of women doctors, like TV is real or something.
edit on 3/16/2024 by TheMichiganSwampBuck because: Added extra comments



posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

you are incorrect. Because science.


That's plain silly. You're just clowning around.



posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Something I had given consideration to when I began to write this thread was legal facts versus scientific facts and how science is used to introduce "facts" into court cases. That zone where science is used to support legal actions that then become a legal precedent in later proceedings. If science can be used toward some end, either political or legal, it will IMO.
edit on 3/16/2024 by TheMichiganSwampBuck because: for clarity



posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 01:01 AM
link   
God enjoys liberation from knowledge of good and evil. His eternal brilliance never radiates the contrary.



posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

Do you believe postmodernism actually exists?



posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheMichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

you are incorrect. Because science.


That's plain silly. You're just clowning around.


when in Rome......



posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

Do you believe postmodernism actually exists?


That seems like a trick question. It exists in higher education as a course of study, otherwise no. It is a label for the era after modernism, so they could pigeon hole any current trends with that label.
edit on 3/16/2024 by TheMichiganSwampBuck because: for clarity



posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Boomer1947

Nice post Boomer.



If you have a better plan, this would be a good time to share it.

Generally, I don't think the plan itself is the problem. I do think that vested interests in certain outcomes from outside the scientific community is a problem. The peer review process could use an overhaul, as well as the fact that many scientists cannot replicate studies by their peers.

The scientific process is not the problem at hand. The subversion of it and lax adherence to it are.


(post by diaclonethunder removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

What if...in reality, there is no science?



posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

I went through a phase of thinking about the term, I couldn't really wrap my head around if post- modernism could actually exist. Especially in today's world.



posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

I went through a phase of thinking about the term, I couldn't really wrap my head around if post- modernism could actually exist. Especially in today's world.


Initially, I was studying the postmodern art movement. This was back in the 80s when it was being recognized as beginning in the late 1950s. As for art history, I'd say it was limited in its scope, however, it introduced me to the theories that led down a rabbit hole that screwed me up for at least a year. I graduated around that time and became a devoted conservative who never missed a vote after that.



posted on Mar, 16 2024 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cvastar
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

What if...in reality, there is no science?


Then everyone’s perception of their delusions are linked. In effect we live in a dream.

To the OP, I like the comparison you made between scientists now and priests of yesteryear




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join