There are the two camps of believers, and then there are those in the middle that know it’s stupid to be in either camp when there is insufficient information to make that call.
The implication that one camp is better or more correct than the other is laughable at best.
You would think proof would tilt the balance one way or the other, but entrenchments are hard to break, even with irrefutable proof.
There are only two kinds of people in the world: those who won't take advice because they already know everything, and that's why everything they do is so shitty, and those who always take good advice. 🙂
You want evidence to a claim? Ask the person who made the claim, not the posters on this thread. It's a simple logic, which is still not getting through you. 🙄
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Very strange turn of events. Believers are calling science a belief. Of course that’s utter nonsense but it potentially reveals the root cause of science denial amongst some people. For these people who deny science they also view it as a belief, an alternative belief to their own and potentially a competing false belief to be opposed. Fascinating. And for some people it may be true that science is what occurs in the absence of any belief and hence their conviction that it provides the truth.
For the 2000th time (I include your future posts, since they are always the same, you have NO arguments 🙄) , you can not prove something didn´t or couldn´t happen sometime somewhere, negative "proof" means NOTHING because you can´t search the entire Universe, since its creation/beginning to its end.
Asking for an impossible task is silly.
I would use a stronger word but you got me at a polite/forgiving day.
Instead, I am asking for positive proof that something DID happen, which you fail miserably to produce.
Althoug it is oh so simple, just bring the objects for examination.
You do not need to search all of Time, all of Universe, just from 1947 on, and present on Planet Earth. 😀
Now I have made the task infinitely simpler, and yet ... crick crick.
EDIT: Just found Russell´s Teapot analogy.
Which of course is right, and what we Rationals in this thread have been saying all the time:
Emphasis on nonsense, applied to those who ask US to disprove their crazy unbased gospel.
That they insist on this error, on and on, means they have NO real ideas to offer.
More misused “science denial” labelling. What do you call the belief that a known to be incomplete theory can explain everything? If that isn’t faith, I don’t know what is. Fascinating. I’m pretty sure that any self respecting physicist would not deny the possible existence of something while knowing that they don’t know enough to be certain. Actual scientists wouldn’t be writing the sort of posts that I’m seeing from the denier camp.
The idea that the denier camp somehow is pro-science and that the believer camp is anti-science is a red herring. Real science rejects orthodoxy, and looks forward with the full knowledge that we don’t know everything there is to know. Science destroys its past while creating its future. Believers live in the future, and deniers in the past. Science exists somewhere in the middle.
So entertaining! I love it when he gets angry and starts using caps. So rational. Haha.
Keep in mind whose camp he’s in.
Last edited:
Exactly. And - surprise! - a few posts later your post is refuted by someone who simply did not read, or did not understand it, and calls science a belief again.
I note afa earlier referred to Russell's teapot - Wikipedia - worth repeating I think.
I hope this thread keeps going - it's a source of amusement that keeps on giving!
Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. - Wiki
Heresy! 😀
Heresy! 😀
It is entertaining but sad.
I really didn't think anyone would try the old "science is a religion" on a website of engineers. Oh, but we don't really use science, do we? Yeah, you might see me jotting numbers down and drawing circuits, but in reality I just put on a big wizard hat and chant magic spells and next thing Poof! There's a fully assembled high pass filter. Then I look all smart and stuff by soldering a few wires and tightening a couple screws. Oh, if they only knew how fake it all is!
And the lectures on logic, while the poster is committing multiple logical fallacies, is exactly like religious discussions I've had. Prove a negative - check. False equivalence - check. Moving the goalposts - check. Good old fashioned pretending - check. And so on.
I really didn't think anyone would try the old "science is a religion" on a website of engineers. Oh, but we don't really use science, do we? Yeah, you might see me jotting numbers down and drawing circuits, but in reality I just put on a big wizard hat and chant magic spells and next thing Poof! There's a fully assembled high pass filter. Then I look all smart and stuff by soldering a few wires and tightening a couple screws. Oh, if they only knew how fake it all is!
And the lectures on logic, while the poster is committing multiple logical fallacies, is exactly like religious discussions I've had. Prove a negative - check. False equivalence - check. Moving the goalposts - check. Good old fashioned pretending - check. And so on.
Round and round it goes... meanwhile many top rich people are buying tickets to get a glimpse of space, that's plain stupid and should be illegal, all that fuel for lift off , cant even imagine how many tons co2 they will be emmitting just for their personal fun.
I'm curious as to what degree the recent UAP upsurge may serve as publicity for the benefit of "commercial space flight."
Particularly after the TV just had a "Special News Report" programming break-in for Branson's (less than scientific, imo) accomplishment. And frankly, the post above.
Particularly after the TV just had a "Special News Report" programming break-in for Branson's (less than scientific, imo) accomplishment. And frankly, the post above.
@tizman,
How many times do we need to point out that an ‘incomplete understanding of physics’ (whatever that means) does not preclude scientists from making a considered statement that alien visitations are highly, highly improbable.
Further, if your assertion is correct, ie scientists are in no position to postulate on anything, since their knowledge is incomplete, where does that leave all the progress made over the last 300 years? Scientific knowledge does not destroy its past to create its future. Without Maxwell and Newton, there would be no relativity, without Faraday, no Maxwell and so forth.
Further, in what way are you qualified to make such a statement? Are you a physicist? An astrobiologist? A planetary scientist? A mathematician? These are the people who have weighed in on the alien question but you presume to discard their considered opinion with a ‘well you can’t explain gravity so your opinion does not count’.
🙂
How many times do we need to point out that an ‘incomplete understanding of physics’ (whatever that means) does not preclude scientists from making a considered statement that alien visitations are highly, highly improbable.
Further, if your assertion is correct, ie scientists are in no position to postulate on anything, since their knowledge is incomplete, where does that leave all the progress made over the last 300 years? Scientific knowledge does not destroy its past to create its future. Without Maxwell and Newton, there would be no relativity, without Faraday, no Maxwell and so forth.
Further, in what way are you qualified to make such a statement? Are you a physicist? An astrobiologist? A planetary scientist? A mathematician? These are the people who have weighed in on the alien question but you presume to discard their considered opinion with a ‘well you can’t explain gravity so your opinion does not count’.
🙂
Last edited:
"I'm curious as to what degree the recent UAP upsurge may serve as publicity for the benefit of "commercial space flight."
Now that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
Now that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
If you want positive proof to a claim that something happened, you ask the person who made that claim. If John happened to be the one who made a claim, you ask John for proof, not John's neighbor. 🙄
Remember, the following quote is your own claim, in case you aren't aware what claim looks like.
Q: What were the extraordinary claims and who made those? Can you quote them?
You have yet to post a single quote of my claim.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
- Status
- Not open for further replies.