It seems like 90% of those who say science is a lie are uneducated in field or just dumb

reply to post by virgom129


Maybe if you were to fully understand what I was saying I wouldn't have to explain again. First off 90% means that there is a 10% group who actually are educated but believe different ideas. You could have thrown yourself into this group but you chose the 90%. And I said it SEEMS like 90% of the people who have nothing good to say about science don't know much about. I missed your response to Enriched Uranium being able to be converted into plutonium?

I love to be called uneducated by people who don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis... You know, that last word that equates to "basis for an eventual theory"...
Because you know a hypothesis is a postulation YET to be proved or disproved in view of becoming a theory and a theory is a PROVED hypothesis... But I'm just uneducating you here, I guess...
Oh. Don't you just love the fact that the word "theory" means something in the line of "God's authority"? Go figure...
But scientists know best. That is why they are doing CHEMISTRY, a word that comes from the Greek "khêmeia" that means "BLACK MAGIC"... Uhn!

Now guess who got uneducated by whom... Unless you rather "believe" the "theory" that says the sun is the heaviest object in the solar system, but by being composed of the lightest material in the universe... Tell me, why are scientific words relating to religious theming to explain things away?
That flabbergasts me!

Originally posted by seangkt
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Seriously? 90% was a number I threw out there for fun. Not a serious percentage at all. Just a number that got the point across easier.

That's not very "scientific".

And I'm sure you made some mathmaticians pretty upset for pretending to know statistics and not know anything about it...just saying.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Pretending to know statistics? I certainly didn't claim to know statistics. I just threw out a number is all. For the record I had no need to take statistics but my brother did and guess who learned?

[edit on 13-4-2010 by seangkt]

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by seangkt
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Seriously? 90% was a number I threw out there for fun. Not a serious percentage at all. Just a number that got the point across easier.

That's not very "scientific".

And I'm sure you made some mathmaticians pretty upset for pretending to know statistics and not know anything about it...just saying.

Did you want him to do a survey of those who say science is a lie?
Ridiculous arguing semantics.

I was just thinking of something, the drive to turn the average person away from a personal interst in science is great. From cartoons as a child the mind is already imprinted with the "smart nerd has no friends" archetype before they even reach school. Then at school unescessary notation is used to overcomplicate inherently simple concepts. I noticed this when I tutored high school maths to pay my way through uni, with my knowledge of advanced calculus I realized the way Id been taught the art of numbers in school was boreing and mostly meaningless to peoples real lives, but most of all I was being made to teach them slow difficult methods like they way you have to memorize all times tables in primary school rather than learning a few and iterating the others. Not to mention the chaos the decimal system creates, lacks the beutey and simplicity of the sexagesimal. There also seems to be a huge push to lure anybody from a personal pusuit in science, while giving the illusion of doing the opposite, only allowing those who go down the narrow path of specialization to really get deep into the subject matter but they have lost the broad scope, and the "big picture". More people playing with magnets and electrics for example in their garage rather than watching the footy game on the tv could be a threat so mind controll methods such as hollywood help tell you your uncool and will never get chicks that way so stay out of the science, unless your willing to forgo your wide breadth for money.

So those 90% who dont know much have just been scared away from science by unescessary complex notation and social programming.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by polarwarrior]

reply to post by hippomchippo


It's not arguing semantics...he is making up data and then turning around and calling people dumb.

And he is continuing to defend his fake statistic in a couple posts above.

I'm just pointing out the irony...and it makes me suspect that the OP probably has little understanding of "science" himself.

well it isn't a complete lie. just that sometimes the claims are just outrageous without indefinite proof.

reply to post by Aresh Troxit


I'll be sure to completely literal next time I'm on a post you find your way to.
I'm quite aware of the differences between a hypothesis and a theory.
You know where a couple names came from and now I'm uneducated? Sure buddy. Knowing chemistry came from a word meaning black magic might get you a couple hundred on Jeopardy but it certainly isn't anything that is necessary to know.

What are you trying to get at by mentioning science words are religiously themed? I don't see the relevance.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by seangkt]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


To sit here and really hold up that 90% argument is one of the most ignorant things I have ever witnessed. If that's all you have to say on the subject I read it and you can stop now.

It's ironical that those same 90% that spew hate towards science and call it a lie...well, they are spouting off about it on what? TV? Radio? Internet? All thanks to science. These same folks have likely had their life saved at some point by modern medicine. Have driven since the age of 16. Have taken a flight to somewhere in the world. All thanks to science. They all mindlessly converse on telephones. Enjoy central heating and air. Enjoy the wonders of food preservation through refrigeration. All thanks to science.

Well, you get the picture...I could go on and on all day long about the reality, beauty, importance, necessity and truth of science, but I digress...

reply to post by polarwarrior


You tutored calculus? What was that like? My best friends grandpa was head of our community college math board for years. He is responsible for the colleges whole calculus curriculum. I had him as my tutor and was thinking about trying out tutoring but was kind of iffy.

I protest the figure too. I'm arguing from personal experience here, but I think the real number is much higher. That's not to say that majority of people who agree with the science stuff are necessarily any smarter or more educated. They're just less irrational or simply don't care.

reply to post by seangkt


Well it was only to high school kids, and I was doing calculus at uni at the time so math was fresh on my mind when id get to class to teach. Plus it was in the years just out of school so I still remembered how my teacher explained it to me. But what I wasnt prepared for was the insight into the unescessary complication used to teach the inhenently simple underlying concepts.

reply to post by polarwarrior


Ah. My best friend is extremely interested in physics but isn't school material at all. I was able to teach him a whole semesters physics in a little over a month. It made me think strongly about tutoring. Although for some reason I sucked at teaching the thermodynamics basics.

reply to post by rhinoceros


*Clapping*

There are still a whole lot of things that science cannot explain or account for and the word theory is simply the word theory. There is nothing wrong with science if it is used to do anything good such as research medicines and explore the universe with lenses, but things like microchip trackers and fusing with technology are some of the most abominable things I can think of as to why it can also be bad to have the technological capabilities we have today. Science can be used for good. Unfortunately that's the rare case. Today we have weapons of mass destruction and HAARP style tech. I don't like it much. Considering the Bible was NOT REWRITTEN in any way shape or form but simply compiled together around 325 AD (not sure about exact year) censored from all the other books that should have been in there. They didn't re-write anything, but rather hid knowledge about angels and heaven and things that would keep them out of power. Such as the Book of Enoch, which if you really read it, how else but Yah and His angels did Enoch learn such knowledge about heaven and astronomical cycles and black holes? The angels took him up to the heavens and he wrote what he saw. That is only one book out of 365. A lot of info is missing from him. The modern excuse for that is it was aliens. The funny thing is, angels are extra-terrestrial beings with celestial bodies but are NOT ALIENS. They are not of this earth, but did not evolve in some cosmic process. Yah created them before man was ever created and they traverse the heavens freely. Even Satan's fallen angels are not all bound. Not all of the Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, etc. are completely obliterated either. They also live in the high places and the heavens. They have had all this time to breed and get ready for the last years of history. After all Anti-Christ Maitreya will have UFO occupants of the bad kind on his side. They are not here to help. The Bible is actually re-established by science.

reply to post by seangkt


i agree to an extent. it seems, however, that your particular attention to detail, should also be evident in your handling of the material of human beings.

for example. a musical savant


what are the chances he would conform to your idea of scientific reality, per the rules of grammar, spelling or understanding of "science" in general? other than perhaps a medical diagnosis of his "condition" (savant syndrome)?

some dyslexics can't spell but many of them are quite brilliant.

this fellow sees numbers as colors, textures, feelings and forms. he has a near photographic memory but would likely be hard pressed to debate the social norms regarding popular "science". to him science would be a lot more advanced than we could appreciate or understand fully, for that matter.



i think ya just need to step down a notch and consider that with every question or skeptical inquiry regarding things like science, there's equally skeptical inquiry regarding every belief system on the planet. there's really not a norm and there never has been. to suggest otherwise is to not understand the nature of what it means to be human .

Not sure if I'm one of the ones included here...

Because I tend to think some of the theories floating around (like string theory, etc.) are "iffy" at best....

The problem I have with it, is that to work, the math DEPENDS on the hypothetical existence of multiple dimensions, to make the math "fit". To me, that isn't a theory, it's a "hypothesis".... Yet it seems everyone almost accepts this as being as acceptable as Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which has a lot more evidence supporting it)...

For the record, I'm college educated, with a Masters degree (no, not in Physics, but certainly had my share of math and statistics...)

Regardless, I'm certainly entitled to my opinion...and scientists have certainly been wrong before (and will be again). To their credit though, scientists admit when they are wrong and tend to move on...

And then the religious people

FYI, I have a degree in science, and I believe in God. How am I less intelligent because I'm religious?
Oh, and by the way, one of the most brilliant minds to ever walk the earth said ......

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

When the answer is simple, God is speaking. (Albert Einstein)

www.spaceandmotion.com...