Deny Scientific Lazyness

Since when ATS is filled with these "deny ignorance" crowd that shoots down every theories?

I don't see them shooting down big bang theory with the less-than-stellar evidence. These lazy "skeptics" does nothing to advance the thought and postulations necessary to advance the thinking on very controversial research such as UFOlogy and ancient advance technologies.

All they do is sit on their fat asses and shoot down anything that has no conventional evidence of "PUT A ROCK IN FRONT OF ME, LET ME TOUCH IT AND TAKE IT HOME FOR A FEW WEEKS AND STUDY IT UNDER MY CHEAP MICROSCOPE. *

Since when the accepted theories like big bang, carbon dating, evolution gives us any concrete evidence anyways? Yet I don't seee them debunking it?

If every discussion of UFO and other issues are filled with posts like "Deny igonrance" which now really high-jacked into meaning: Don't believe anything unless it's widely accepted and endorsed by the conventional scientific community and posted on front page of NY Times.

Wake up ATS, you are not "Popular Science" take a step and stop being a scientific mule.

I mean, if I want to read about the conventional and accepted theories of the world I would not come here, I'd go to National Geographic or other websites like it. Heck, GRADE-SCHOOL thought us everything I already need to know about conventional science.

Some of us are here because we have scientific CURIOSITY about the YET TO BE VERIFIED theories and thinkings. None of us here have rockets to send probes to Mars or the Moon, so the we do the best we can with pictures taken from NASA websites, through PLAUSIBLE theories and other means. Let's face it, the mainstream scientists and "old coots" in the lab are not going to study these wild theories so who will but those who have the courage and contribute their own time to think the theories through?

Let's LEAD the investigation through our scientific curiosity and controversial theories. GIVE THOSE WHO SPEND TIME AND EFFORT the benefit of the doubt and let the theory sit in your mind before you shoot it down so fast.

Let's not FOLLOW the news.

That's why I come to ATS, and if I see more of ATS threads being filled with "SHOW ME PROOF I WANT PROOF. SHIP THE PROOF TO MY FRONT DOOR OR I DONT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT UNLESS IT'S REPORTED BY CNN." posts, I will quit coming here and just tell others that ATS is filled with scientific mules that only FOLLOWS.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by docklands]

* ATS is a site that expects it's members to conduct themselves with civility and decorum in their discussions. Please review these links ... you might find them helpful in fostering intelligent and polite conversation and debate

ATS TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Courtesy is Mandatory

Civility and Decorum are Expected







[edit on 10/2/2007 by benevolent tyrant]

Dude, it's not 'science', it's the Scientific Method that should be used.

That is:
1. Define the problem;
2. Gather observations;
3. Formulate hypothesis;
4. Design experiment;
5. Collect data;
6. Analyze data;
7. Interpret data;
8. Publish experiment;
9. Reformulate hypothesis;
10. Replication of experiment (by others).

What method would you propose?


[edit on 1-10-2007 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Badge01
Dude, it's not 'science', it's the Scientific Method that should be used.

That is:
1. Define the problem;
2. Gather observations;
3. Formulate hypothesis;
4. Design experiment;
5. Collect data;
6. Analyze data;
7. Interpret data;
8. Publish experiment;
9. Reformulate hypothesis;
10. Replication of experiment (by others).

What method would you propose?


[edit on 1-10-2007 by Badge01]

If we use those method, where would current scientific theories stand on:
1. Big Bang.
2. Evolution.
3. Origin of Life from nothing.
4. Birth of Universe
5. Black Holes.
6. Creation of asteroid belts.
7. Clustering of galaxies.


Can you or anyone like you conduct and experiment that results in the creation of life and the universe? How about re-enact the evolution of human from apes? Let's start with that.

There are a couple threads questioning the big bang that I've posted in, and some supporting alternative theories.

But when evidence is presented, either historical or scientific, the skeptics and the believers of status quo start with the rhetoric.

I applaud your effort though, if more scientists would wake up and become real paradigm shifters, the world would be much better informed.

Originally posted by Ionized
I applaud your effort though, if more scientists would wake up and become real paradigm shifters, the world would be much better informed.

That's just it, scientific stagnation due to the fact that no one's wants to be ridiculed by the ultra-conservative mainstream scientific community. I'm just surprised they lurk here as well, why are they here?

No one even wants to study the area outside of the traditional study subjects and with conventional means. No funding, no interest, squashed curiosity, and now we are dumber than our ancestors.

You see Noble-prized scientists flip-flopping on their own findings (Mario Minola just over turn his OWN nobel-winning Ozone theory).

Conventional science has failed us, and it has failed us again. 1000,000 test subjects over years says wine is good for you, and now they say wine causes cancer?

Obviously we can't rely on test and re-test method.

I noticed that you've listed "black holes" as a science. My friend, black holes are indeed not a science, by the definition of the scientific method. No one refutes that.

I believe that you need to understand what a scientific theory is, because you use the word as if a scientific theory is a philosophical theory, which it is not. There's a major difference.

Anyone who doesn't question everything and is a scientist is doomed to failure. There's a saying in Buddhism, “Great doubt, great enlightenment. Little doubt, little enlightenment. No doubt, no enlightenment.” We (scientists) follow the same mantra. To think otherwise is to think ignorantly.

reply to post by T_Jesus



You contradicted yourself...

Lazyness.....L.A.Z.I.N.E.S.S.
The state or quality of being lazy. Indisposition to action or exertion. Indolence.
When accusing others of lazyness, I suggest you check the dictionary first.

Funny, as science is all about questions. In order to discover answers, one must look at the question, find evidence, or compare it to what is known.

The Big bang theory is still undergoing change and review, which is a good thing. Cosmology and sub atomic physics are two related areas that we actively study and refine our understanding on a regular basis. The Large Hadron Collider, the worlds largest superconducting supercollider, will soon come online, and with it we will be able to do some remarkable experiments on the nature of matter and the universe.

Evolution is something that we learn more and more about all the time. How it works, factors that influence it, etc. It was not that long ago that Horizontal Evolution was understood, and that understanding of Horizontal Evolution has greatly increased our understanding of Evolution in general. Horizontal evolution was a huge factor in how we got our immune system, for example

Astronomy is another area where we learn new things all the time. Our ability to take a closer look through newer space probes and improved telescopes have opened up whole new areas of research. In only the past few years have we been able to demonstrate extra solar planets. The Dawn mission was just launched to explore the asteroids in a whole new way. The Mars Rovers have given us a huge amount of data that we are learning a great deal from, and plans for newer Mars missions are on their way.  

Science has not stagnated at all. It is flourishing.

There's lots of evidence for the Big Bang, etc. You probably never even looked at the evidence or stages which led to them.

IMO i'll tell you why these UFO theories are bs.
These advanced races wouldn't just travel lights years and light years just to have their photos taken, which conveniently is blurry, and off they go.

No race which are advanced enough to travel to other races are stupid enought to do that.

Originally posted by docklands
If we use those method, where would current scientific theories stand on:
1. Big Bang.
2. Evolution.
3. Origin of Life from nothing.
4. Birth of Universe
5. Black Holes.
6. Creation of asteroid belts.
7. Clustering of galaxies.

Exactly where they are. That's what scientists use to test their theories. The fact that you question them has no consequence on the workings of the scientific method.

I like how you say 'origin of life from nothing'. Since when were chemical compounds nothing?

Can you or anyone like you conduct and experiment that results in the creation of life and the universe? How about re-enact the evolution of human from apes? Let's start with that.

This shows that you do not understand science.

We don't need to re-enact these events, we need to form testable theories that are consistent with the evidence. Thus, when we find evidence of chromosome 2, endogenous retroviri, and pseudogenes, we can see that the molecular evidence is consistent with the idea that chimps and humans have a common ancestor.

You see, it's not scientists sitting in their mother's basement being an internet warrior complaining about how they like to see evidence and form theories consistent with real-world evidence. They are actually working hard and long hours every day to push back the boundaries of ignorance, mostly for measly rewards and intense competition. And you think it's courageous to scour the internet in your spare time for evidence of UFOs and other stuff...

Maybe they aren't working on whatever your pet theory is, I'm sure they have better things to do.

I can see the discussion in the NASA meeting room now:

Scientist A: we only have so much money, because the government is cutting back quite hard, but the choice to either find out whether cydonia has actual real intelligently designed pyramids like some 'alternative' theorists believe, or study the surface of mars for the presence of water, laying the basis for a future manned mission, and maybe even the possible remnants of organisms.

Scientist B: Well, we did find that the face on mars was just a funny-looking mountain, why bother with the pyramids? We may as well look for that which is going to most likely to gain something useful. The chances are that these pyramids are just another natural feature of mars.

Scientist C: No, we should check out the pyramids, I hear that docklands thinks scientists are wusses and should study his pet theory. Listen the millions of dollars are actual public funds, I'm sure people will want to know for certain that the pyramids are just mountains.

Scientist B: But it will almost certainly be a total waste of money and time, it takes bloody ages to get a probe out there. Better to study an area of mars that is likely to have water, it's our best chance to find a suitable place for a manned mission. We might even find the evidence of past microbial lifeforms.

Scientist A: Well, lets just make a poll on ATS, that should ensure the mission is most buck effective...

[edit on 1-10-2007 by melatonin]

To the Original poster.

A scientific Theory is just that.

A theory.

If it is accepted in the mainstream scientific community it is because they have tested it with the available evidence and found it to corrolate.

They keep testing to become more accurate.

But it is still a theory.

Hi docklands, I completely understand where you are coming from, I have recently seen the brunt of the armchair scientists in a Big Bang debate, after presenting evidence that shows how weak the supporting evidence really is, the argument then turned against me. This is a common occurrence when scientific dogma gets backed into a corner.

Scientists are not immune to the frailties of the human condition, many scientists and particularly the armchair scientists huddle together behind the authority figures, rather than being an individual, they sport the theories of their leaders like an intellectual badge of honor. This is simply the herd instinct that people suffer from so strongly.
Unfortunately today, scientists have to deal with another problem, that is keeping credibility with their peers in the scientific community, so there definitely is an environment of conformism, with all the ideals being held by a relatively small few that control the peer review process.

All of this is in reference to the theoretical sciences of course, history has shown this to be true time and time again, most great discoveries received great resistance, sometimes for many years and sometimes even after the discoverer or theorist has long passed. Except in the case of the big bangers who would leap on anything they thought would support their theory.

Cosmology is an excellent example, in the face of skepticism it's funny how scientists talk about things that belong in science fiction as fact, like the big bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, strange matter, space time and the concepts of time travel and let's not forget our mathematically proven parallel universes.

This is a good example of what you are talking about, this letter was also called "An Open Letter to Close Minds."
cosmologystatement.org...

I can almost hear the armchair scientists leaping from their chairs to defend their religion.

It just doesn't make sense to say that scientists refuse to look at 'fringe' theories because they're lazy/scared/whatever - a lot of the mainstream physics that we take for granted today was once seen as crazy and impossible in terms of the older theories, but the new ideas were accepted in the end because they made *testable predections* that turned out to be right. Scienctists love new theories which overturn the old ideas - that's what makes science fun. The heroes of science are the ones who came up with ideas which seemed heretical at the time but which turned out to be right. People like Reich are humorous footnotes in science because their theories turned out to be wrong. In the early days of a new theory there are always conservatives who don't like the new theory because it challenges their previous work, but that's why we have the scientific method - which theory ends up being accepted is based not on whether we like it or not, but on whether it works.

I remember taking a college sociology course. Part of the course dealt with evolution. The professor ridiculed the Bible and anyone who believed in it. I expected this and was not suprised when he unloaded on one young female who said that she didn't believe in evolution. He accused her of not being open minded, of being brainwashed into believing creation, when Science had "proven" that evolution was a fact and could even give the approx date when modern man appeared on the scene.

I remember the look of rage on his face when I had the audacity to tell him that his date for the emergence of modern man was not a proven fact, and that all his bellowing and bullying could not change the real fact that the text book he used gave at least three different dates for the emergence of modern man. Were talking differences of 100's of thousands of years.

He was one who constantly spouted off about the scientific method. When I asked him if the scientific method could in fact prove any of the dates given, he was forced to admit that it could not. I got an A in the class. and I even got to take the browbeaten young lady out for coffee.

The scientific method is not some sacred code that applies to all disciplines.
It is not all uncommon for scientists to come up with a hypothysis first and then go out to try to find evidence to support it.
It is this that causes the interpretation of the evidence to be skewed to fit their pre-conceived notions.

The difference is, of course, that in order for the science and its findings to be valid, it has to be peer-reviewed, as well as reproducible. If it isn't reproducible by the scientist's peers, it's not considered valid.

reply to original post by docklands

Well done. I've given your post a star.

I'm one of those mean old scientifically minded sceptics, or so I've heard from fellow members. I admit I'm as happy as the next guy to point out errors and supply the correct information -- or what I believe to be so (and my credulity quotient is pretty low). Your post isn't likely to change my behaviour on my favourite board and there's nothing I enjoy more than a good strong debate. As far as I'm concerned, that's why ATS exists. Others may well feel differently. They are welcome to.

But I suppose, thinking about it, that it must suck the life out of a thread -- all the juicy mystery, that hollow, slightly anxious sense of wonder, the tremulous identification, all that good stuff -- when some show-me-the-body sceptic turns up and starts pouring ice water over everything.

Yuck.

There's something you can do about it, though.

Treat sceptical interventions -- those unpleasant close encounters -- as you would trolling posts; ignore them and keep the exciting conversation going with your fellow true believers. If no-one will play, the sceptic will lose interest and drift off to another thread.

Unlike true believers, sceptics or, ah, debunkers if you prefer, aren't that persistent. They really don't have such a passionate need to convince others that they've got the truth. After all (did you not say), majority opinion is on their side. They are already the orthodoxy.

So just leave them alone and they will go home, pulling their tails behind them like Little Bo Peep's sheep. Isn't that what you call them, representatives of the Sheeple?

Trouble is, true believers can't always leave it alone. So out come the rapiers, and in a matter of a page or so the canvas of wonder and speculation is in tatters.

Mind you though, those are the threads that go on the longest. The only time a thread ever got killed by a good argument was when it got out of hand and a moderator closed it.

I, for my part, am rather pleased that some true believers can't resist a good wrangle.

Originally posted by Sparky63


I remember the look of rage on his face when I had the audacity to tell him that his date for the emergence of modern man was not a proven fact, and that all his bellowing and bullying could not change the real fact that the text book he used gave at least three different dates for the emergence of modern man. Were talking differences of 100's of thousands of years.

The scientific method is not some sacred code that applies to all disciplines.
It is not all uncommon for scientists to come up with a hypothysis first and then go out to try to find evidence to support it.
It is this that causes the interpretation of the evidence to be skewed to fit their pre-conceived notions.

*Applause*
I only wish I had the OBJECTIVITY when I was in school to confront those who can only preaches what's in the textbooks. But I was like many others, listened and took it all in as FACT. It was a brain-washing of sorts. Science is becoming a witch-hunt for the unbelievers. Science has many holes and shortcomings that you would not believe. It's a one way street down a very stiff way to explaining the world, and even that way is faltering.

Where have current conventional science gotten us? A world filled with pollution. And how have we human advance from the people 3000 years ago? WHat internet has chnaged humanity so drastically? No, it only allows us to communicate. The earth is still the same, we still under the mercy of nature. A 10.0 earthquake that generates tsunami and we are all dead.

How about Meteorolgy? HOw many of us really count of weather report? It's like palm reading, yet that's our "science".

I don't mind it as long as those who are the mules of conventional science let some of the more "controversial posters" here a breathing space to get the wild theories take flight. I'd like an alien discussion go on for at least one page before seeing a pos like: "Remember, Deny Ignorance crap" as if we are idiots and he is mightier than thou because he subscribes to Popular Science.

WIthouht imagination and impossible theories, you'd all be a bunch of yes-man for the conventional science.

Think outside the box, way outside, WAY outside. We humans are beyond what science can explain. Consciousness is a series of "electrical brain charges". OMG that's a genious explanation. WHat causes the electrical impulses? And what makes the electical have such impulses? Does electical impulses have impulses? Why do they have impulses?

The answer you will get in a laughter at your stupidity because they can't explain it and they will never.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Unlike true believers, sceptics or, ah, debunkers if you prefer, aren't that persistent. They really don't have such a passionate need to convince others that they've got the truth.

Sometimes the sceptic just gets bored because no matter how they try to present the most rational, simplest explanation possible, the other side won't have it and prefers the fantastic. There are also plenty of times when good questions are raised, the questioner gets sarcastic replies instead. Of course I've seen this happen in reverse as well.

That isn't a good way to get people to understand or see where you are coming from.

Originally posted by Beachcoma


Sometimes the sceptic just gets bored because no matter how they try to present the most rational, simplest explanation possible, the other side won't have it and prefers the fantastic. There are also plenty of times when good questions are raised, the questioner gets sarcastic replies instead. Of course I've seen this happen in reverse as well.

That isn't a good way to get people to understand or see where you are coming from.

It;s so much easier for debunkers to debunk because the current world view is built on the foundation of what I will now call Crude Science. That is to explain things after the fact. How hard is it to say: "Proof?" everytime a poor sap tries to ponder if there is life out there?

Ponder? You aren't even allow that. I'm not for the fantastic, but I am against the strangle hold science have on the fringe scientists. It's fascism in science.