Originally posted by Devil King
We can have a conversation or even an argument, but every other word out of your mouth is AIDs this or ****** that.And dadudemon, don't babble about levels and immaturity. Just because you come on here and offer thinly veiled insults wrapped in bad sarcasm, passing it off as friendly interest while engaging in arguments where you repeatedly talk out of your ass, doesn't mean anyone buys it.
Yup, that was a fail. 🙂
In the end, I know you love me. Those false insults are more for yourself than anyone else. I'll tell ya a secret...heh heh....pssst...come a little closer............okay..............can ya hear meh?....................you know that you'll never convince yourself, right? I'm just too lovable teh hate. 😄
Originally posted by inimalist
its been less than a century really...but im sure in 4 or 5 centuries we will say the same thing as methods improve.
When did the scientific method start being used? At what point, going back in time, did athe expirements/tests fail to meet any modern standards?
Originally posted by dadudemon
When did the scientific method start being used? At what point, going back in time, did athe expirements/tests fail to meet any modern standards?
hmmmmmm
scientific method, per say, could go back thousands of years if you define it informally. A formal definition could also mean that much of what is called "science" modernly has yet to achieve that status (re: there is a lot of idealism in the scientific method, much of which is very difficult to achieve).
The major groundwork was done by lots of the people you mentioned and similar figures from the past. The scientific revolution is generally thought to have been in the 16-1700s (I'm not a historian at the best of times, so don't take my word for most of it).
Maybe 100 years was a bit short, but 200 is probably too long. Sort of after the end of the scientific revolution, people began to solidify "fields" of knowledge, and the methods within them. Professional science, using the methodology we would be familiar with today, sort of came into its own in the late 1800s mid 1900s.
The 100 years mark, I guess, was a little tongue in cheek. Certainly there is no line one can draw in history to say "here is where people became scientists". It is true that many people living even before the scientific revolution had great ideas about how to investigate the world that may have passed what would be scientific standards today. It is also true that the strictest scientific methods are, even today, almost impossible to obtain. I would say that it was in the past century alone that methodological rationalism, the philosophy behind science, emerged as a well verbalized tradition. I would also say that it has been in the past 100 years that that tradition has been incorporated into the fundamentals of what it means to investigate nature.
About everything else we were discussing: Yes, all scientists have their work expanded upon after their death. A first year physics major knows more about relativity than Einstein ever would. I think we were just using different definitions or whatever.
The matter of public vs scientific acceptance: 2 examples to illustrate what I am saying. When Copernicus made his theories, many people, both intelligencia and lay person did reject it. However, there are many examples of people in the astronomy community who realized instantly that he was bang on. With Darwin, a similar thing occurred. Very few biologists thought he was wrong, and many of the ideas presented in the origin of species were not 100% new to biologists at the time. People in the know and specialists will often be years ahead of the public in knowing what is true in their field. However, in both the case of Darwin and Copernicus (copernicus to a lesser extent) it was the public or specifically the church authority that went against the claims.
Originally posted by inimalist
About everything else we were discussing: Yes, all scientists have their work expanded upon after their death. A first year physics major knows more about relativity than Einstein ever would. I think we were just using different definitions or whatever.
My question was not to actually find out when..but to point out that very important scientific discoveries happened....well before the strict rigors of todays standards such as peer review and result replications.
Your above sentence probably defines this best.
I was making a point that a scientist is going to be biased in his or her work and sometimes, they will be ridiculed by their successive peers for plenty of time after their death or the "heyday." Just because someone is a stout believer in Christianity who also devotes large amounts of time to providing scientific validity to his religion, does not mean that his findings should be thrown out of the window automatically. This is two way street, as you already know and religionists shouldn't do what they have been doing for thousands of years.
Originally posted by dadudemon
My question was not to actually find out when..but to point out that very important scientific discoveries happened....well before the strict rigors of todays standards such as peer review and result replications.Your above sentence probably defines this best.
I was making a point that a scientist is going to be biased in his or her work and sometime, they will be ridiculed by their successive peers for plenty of time after their death or the "heyday." Just because someone is a stout believer in Christianity who also devotes large amounts of time to providing scientific validity to his religion, does not mean that his findings should be thrown out of the window automatically. This is two way street, as you already know and religionists shouldn't do what they have been doing for thousands of years.
agreed, as I said before, I got the impression that you were saying there was some ancient manuscript found in a cave with amazing science, which afaik is a hollywood myth.
I would argue that most great minds were well respected in their day, at least by those in the know, and ridicule would be focused more from competing systems that feel they are losing authority because of the new research.
While no apparent example springs to mind, a highly dogmatic field of research could easily become such an authoritative system, which is why scientists must do everything they can to avoid closing their minds to new interpretations. The origins of localization of function in brain research may be relevant, though this idea originated in phrenology which had many valid scientific criticisms against it...
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yup, that was a fail. 🙂In the end, I know you love me. Those false insults are more for yourself than anyone else. I'll tell ya a secret...heh heh....pssst...come a little closer............okay..............can ya hear meh?....................you know that you'll never convince yourself, right? I'm just too lovable teh hate. 😄
Pssst..come closer....I'll tell you a secret too. This is exacty what I mean. You're one of those people that actually thinks a picture means a thousand words. But for folks like you, they're just a substitute for actually having anything to say.
Originally posted by Devil King
Pssst..come closer....I'll tell you a secret too. This is exacty what I mean. You're one of those people that actually thinks a picture means a thousand words. But for folks like you, they're just a substitute for actually having anything to say.
Oh! come on, it was a cute picture. 😉
An now, for Dr. (von) Sternburg
I had actually heard of this case and had forgotten about it.
And while it's a nice attempt to dismiss science and scientific institutions as agenda-oriented, there is a glaring oversight: it isn't about science. In fact, I can absolutely see almost the exact same thing going on here on KMC. It seems pretty clear that Dr. Sternburg had a real basis for his claim that he was being pushed out of the organization due to his religious perspective on the cambrian explosion of life. (re:the highly criticized Meyer paper which serves as the basis for the argument around D.r Sternburg) If fact, several times in the review it mentions that had the doctor that nominated him for the position of research associate done his "homework" he could have easily found all the information needed to dismiss Sternburg from the running. But, if our esteemed friend feceman reads the entire review and cross references it with the motivating factor for the sudden change in his co-workers attitude, he'll find out it has to do with, SUPRISE!: bad science and an agenda-motivated method! (I feel certain that's been mentioned somewhere in this thread before) The agenda of the other's mentioned in the review is apparent though. It mentions several times that his superiors asked if he was "religious" or "repubican". But it also mentions that it wasn't asked for any reason other than curiosity. They didn't want Sternburg to further utilize the name of the NMNH to advance his participation in the Intelligent Design agenda. And, remarkably enough, Mr. Sternburg is still a doctor, still has his accomplishments and still has his peer reviewed publishings; despite the massive conspiracy he claims exists against him. In all actuality, a lot of the angst on both sides seems to come from an assumption of agenda.
What it strikes me as,more than anything though feceman, is a loud contradiction to your attitude on these forums. Dr. Sternburg whined about some heartache and grief and he got attention. Wouldn't that make him a ****** suffering from the AIDS?
Originally posted by inimalist
hmmmmmmscientific method, per say, could go back thousands of years if you define it informally. A formal definition could also mean that much of what is called "science" modernly has yet to achieve that status (re: there is a lot of idealism in the scientific method, much of which is very difficult to achieve).
The major groundwork was done by lots of the people you mentioned and similar figures from the past. The scientific revolution is generally thought to have been in the 16-1700s (I'm not a historian at the best of times, so don't take my word for most of it).
Maybe 100 years was a bit short, but 200 is probably too long. Sort of after the end of the scientific revolution, people began to solidify "fields" of knowledge, and the methods within them. Professional science, using the methodology we would be familiar with today, sort of came into its own in the late 1800s mid 1900s.
The 100 years mark, I guess, was a little tongue in cheek. Certainly there is no line one can draw in history to say "here is where people became scientists". It is true that many people living even before the scientific revolution had great ideas about how to investigate the world that may have passed what would be scientific standards today. It is also true that the strictest scientific methods are, even today, almost impossible to obtain. I would say that it was in the past century alone that methodological rationalism, the philosophy behind science, emerged as a well verbalized tradition. I would also say that it has been in the past 100 years that that tradition has been incorporated into the fundamentals of what it means to investigate nature.
About everything else we were discussing: Yes, all scientists have their work expanded upon after their death. A first year physics major knows more about relativity than Einstein ever would. I think we were just using different definitions or whatever.
The matter of public vs scientific acceptance: 2 examples to illustrate what I am saying. When Copernicus made his theories, many people, both intelligencia and lay person did reject it. However, there are many examples of people in the astronomy community who realized instantly that he was bang on. With Darwin, a similar thing occurred. Very few biologists thought he was wrong, and many of the ideas presented in the origin of species were not 100% new to biologists at the time. People in the know and specialists will often be years ahead of the public in knowing what is true in their field. However, in both the case of Darwin and Copernicus (copernicus to a lesser extent) it was the public or specifically the church authority that went against the claims.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Loaded question: what is the origin of matter? I know you are going to say that matter is energy and energy can neither be created nor destroyed right? Wrong. Everything in this universe has an origin.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
I agree. Very good shaky. The Big Bang was only a change or evolution of a state of being.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Loaded question: what is the origin of matter? I know you are going to say that matter is energy and energy can neither be created nor destroyed right? Wrong. Everything in this universe has an origin.