Science is fake

Hi guys,

I just wanted to have a rant about mainstream 'science' and the science community, who are really just a bunch of primitive egotists who think that they've discovered all that there is to discover and know about the world.

The reason why I wanted to talk about it is because this mainstream 'science' is making people like ourselves look stupid because we can't 'scientifically' back up what we believe (whatever our beliefs be eg. that Atlantis existed, that primitives had access to advanced technology, that aliens created us etc).

Mainstream science has concluded that evolution is fact and that's the end of the arguement. We even teach it in schools!
Mainstream science has concluded that we are the cause behind global warming.
Mainstream science says that the universe is 'this far across' and 'this far wide' and that it can be measured.

Are these really true? As we know back in the day....

Mainstream science concluded that the world was flat.
Mainstream science said the universe revolves around Earth.
Mainstream science said God lived on a cloud.
Mainstream science said that cloning was impossible.
Mainstream science said that the speed of light was a constant that couldn't ever be broken.

What I'm saying is that science is always changing, new discoveries are being found and sometimes huge revolutions happen where all of the old books are thrown out and rewritten.

There are scientists out there who are challenging the idiotic ideas of mainstream science....

Global warming IS NOT caused by humanity - check out 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' to counter all the lies you've seen in 'An Inconveiniant Truth'.
Evolution is NOT a fact - it is a theory. There are many theories out there, and I support 'Intelligent Design' theory, where we were created by advanced people.
The universe cannot be measured it is infinite - see the theories of Cambridge University mathematical physicist Neil Turok.
There are people out there who don't care about the blind mainstream - people who have discovered the truth and are loudly proclaiming it, instead of worrying about getting 'grants' from simple minded idiots who peddle this false scientific dogma about - check out Bruce Lipton and Craig Venter.
Cloning is an everyday reality.
The speed of light can be sped up and slowed down.

Soon we will make discoveries that will change everything we ever thought about the universe - but will people listen? Not likely!

-Josh

I personally believe that evolution is intelligent design of the universe, if you will, and that intelligent design in beings like us is eventually evolved.

Things are always in equillibrium and perfect harmony and constantly evolving.

I too detest the uses of mainstream science, especially all the newest history channel exploratives with michiu whcko about the beginning of nothing and time travel... etc. But I think many of us people here are that new breed that is flocking in to take future position of leadership and scientific clarity that has been stolen from the establishment from money and fame seeking robots spewing heresay and personal opinion rather than sound logic, reason and science.

As for your "mainstream science facts" back in the day: those weren't really scientific, they were more religious... it's just that if you spoke out about the real truth in that time you knew that you would lose your life, and most did, even the greatest.

[edit on 28-2-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by archangel_josh

Are these really true? As we know back in the day....

Mainstream science concluded that the world was flat.

When was that part of mainstream science exactly?

Mainstream science said God lived on a cloud.

Actually, these were mainly part of mainstream religion.

Mainstream science said that cloning was impossible.

And at the time, with the technology available it was.

Mainstream science said that the speed of light was a constant that couldn't ever be broken.

Has that changed?

What I'm saying is that science is always changing, new discoveries are being found and sometimes huge revolutions happen where all of the old books are thrown out and rewritten.

There are scientists out there who are challenging the idiotic ideas of mainstream science....

Evolution is NOT a fact - it is a theory. There are many theories out there, and I support 'Intelligent Design' theory, where we were created by advanced people.

A scientific theory only becomes a theory after it's been tested many times successfully. I think you're confusing theory with hypothesis.

As for being created by a more advanced people, then what about ring tailed lemurs? Dung Beetles? Sea Anemones? Did these same advanced people create algae as well? And were those advanced people created by other advanced people, who were also created by more advanced people?

The universe cannot be measured it is infinite - see the theories of Cambridge University mathematical physicist Neil Turok.

Turok's work is a variation on the M theory model (and I thought you said theories weren't worth their salt?!)

The speed of light can be sped up and slowed down.

I think you may be confused. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Passing through mediums will cause it to change of course. This was never disputed. The only thing that ever really came into question was what the speed of light was exactly.

Mainstream science changes depending on the evidence, and how accurate it is. That's the great thing about it. Are you concerned that mainstream science isn't changing its ideas fast enough? I'd actually prefer that the standard ideas are held until real testable evidence of other theories are produced. Otherwise we'd follow any ridiculous hypothesis that someone comes up with.

Originally posted by archangel_josh
mainstream 'science' is making people like ourselves look stupid because we can't 'scientifically' back up what we believe (whatever our beliefs be eg. that Atlantis existed, that primitives had access to advanced technology, that aliens created us etc).

And thus, we see the root of why "mainstream science" is poo-poo'd so often by a particular segment of the population.

I take it for granted that you have not read the texts, arguments and lengty argumentations about why science is what it is today. That is, what is scientific method, why it is used, why we do not trust other methods that much and so on and so on.. I may be wrong, so I will also add some general facts about science.

Lets start with this basic and general knowledge which is known by nearly every scientist on earth.

Science has a goal, and that goal is omnisciency. Basically this means knowledge about every mechanism and effect (solutions to problems are the stuff engineers do, that's why I do not include a solution in context of purpose of science).

Scientists also know that science is an evolving thing, usually going forwards but sometimes we have been taken steps back as well. Because science is an evolving thing, and because we do not know everything yet, it becomes obvious that science always goes closer and closer to truth. We may not have a perfect knowledge about some effect yet, but our science always evolves to be more exact, more precies. I'll give you examples.

Newton first realized Three laws of motion. Those laws can be used to tell an exact spot a baseball hits when it is hit with particular force and angle. The law is accurate enough so that we usually use it when we have to know a spot some object end up in. It is not _exactly_ accurate, but when error is in micrometers, it really doesn't matter in everyday applications.

That means we use laws that are wrong, but which can still be used to accurately tell a lot of things when our treshold is large enough. Science is right in that these Laws can be used in hundreds of differents fields of knowledge, manufacturing and development.

Then came Einstein, and created a theory that can explain these things even more accurately. His laws are great and are known in genral by most. However, his laws are not needed in product development, manufacturing or everyday applications. We do not need an accuracy that good. Complexity of his theories rule out most engineers as users of his theories anyway. Yes, we can measure orbits of planets quite accurately with his laws, but even those calculations appear to be in error. But it doesn't matter, usually. If we know orbit on Mars, and that knowledge has an error of one inch, we can safely say that his laws are extremely useful because such a small error only matters in timescales of hundreds of billions of years, which is well above lifetime of the habitable universe.

Does this ring a bell? Science develops accuracy, and accuracy is nearly always better and better, yet previous laws known to be in error are almost never useless, and can be used to explain a billion things, because error in accuracy is usually small enough to be ignored.

I always ask certain questions from people who think science hasn't developed into a state where we can be certain that some things really are true and know.

One of those questions is this: You have a TV, which works because its function is solely based on physical laws. Those laws are known, and engineers have developed your TV by _deducing_ how to do it _from_ physical laws.

Now, do you realize that TV would not work if logical deduction is somehow flawed or that those physical laws are somehow flawed? They aren't and a working appratus based on those laws proves that. They may not be perfectly accurate yet, but accurate enough to actually create our current modern civilizaion. Get that?

So, in a nutshell:

Science creates methods, of functions if you will, and engineers then use this knowledge and deduce solutions with logic (basically equals to math in our context). If logic fails or if a usefullness of a law of nature fails, the appratus that they created does not work.

I forgot to answer some aspects of your rant in my post above. Sorry for that. I am also not a scientist, but I know certain things that have proven to be enough for most to understand aspects about nature of science.

Anyway.. Here we go again.

Your arguments appear to be based on exactly those things that science really does not know for certain yet. There's nothing wrong in not knowing, but the wrongness comes because you assume that science, for that reason, cannot work and does not produce valid results and knowledge.

Basically, we have groups of scientists who are researching for different theories on those things that we have no excellent knowledge about yet. They research different theories and furiously converse with each other about which one is best and actually works. Sometimes they produce only partial theories, but every once in a while, they hit a gold mine. For that theory hitting a gold mine it usually takes decades for it to become accepted as axiom (i.e., truth).

These conversations are sometimes decades in length, and you really can not get an absolute certainty about which argument is true before they have reached a conclusion and consensus in that. If you only look at those things that are currently debated about, it becomes obvious that they do not know for certain everything yet. But it also doesn't mean that science somehow produces opposing truths. It doesn't. Conversations seem to CONTAIN opposite truths but their final result is what matters. There's only one surviving theory, you know.

About truth and theory.. Well, good theory creates knowledge and data, and when this knowledge and data exactly matches observations, we know that the theory is right, thus correct. This is what essence of any theory is. Theory is not seen as truth when we look at observations, but results of a theory are truth when we look at observations. (I wonder if anyone is following my logic anymore..

We all know that evolution is theory, and that this particular theory produces results that can, and are, observed in nature. Whenever our theory can predict observations, we are on correct tracks.

I'll add some blasphemy here just to get some kicks.

Has it occured to you, that evolution is a mechanism. If this mechanism is created by God, it may actually be possible for humankind to crack it and become aware how we were created in the first place. Also, if it is a mechanism working on physical laws, we CAN measure it and thus become aware of it.

Hopefully this shed some light.