Originally posted by RobtardWhat the f*ck? Really?!
He did deliver over 4,000 babies.
That poor woman must have been on this stuff.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you mean with no science no future?
Science is the first type of explanation for the universe that humans have come up with that actually works. Religion, ideology, politics, all that stuff tries to explain things, but fail because of dogma or people refusing to reconsider their beliefs. In almost all other human endeavors at explaining our world, the standard required to believe something is true seems to be little more than "I believe it".
Its sort of tied to how I think science is inherently anarchic, in that, authority and power is antithetical to truth. In many ways, authority comes from dictating what is, and the potential to be wrong costs how much control one really has. Like, even beyond the economic or social interests that motivate a lot of anti-science, I think science just at its core, the way it makes people think about problems and seek for answers, undermines conventional forms of authority.
If people lose faith in science, we become more controllable, because we lose the ability to properly challenge the "truths" that come from on high, and are never changing because they are so valuable to those with power.
Like, there is the "march of progress" side to this, and the need for nations to stay relevant with technology, etc. But I think even more at the core of it, science makes us think in a way where decisions, truths, anything needs to be justified to a reasonable standard that can be demonstrated.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
You'd be happy to live in a nation that tries to spend its way out of debt and will eventually collapse on itself leaving no room for your precious science?
so, in your small and narrow view of the world, I have two options:
1) elect someone who is anti-science, will cut science massively, and will not promote scientific thinking
2) live in a nation that prints money uncontrollably
just as a question, how much money do you think science gets? how much money do you REALLY think Paul is saving with science cuts, and more importantly, how much do you think is being lost with the huge cutback to research?
A comedian [Gervais?] made a point about public washrooms being shut down that I feel is really relevant here. Essentially, "we are destroying things that will cost far more to rebuild than to maintain", and when you cut your nose off despite your face, there will come a day when you probably want that nose back.
thankfully, I live in a nation that isn't [as] crazy [as america], so I don't have to spend much time on such a false dichotomy as you have presented.
and yes, I'd happily pay a much more significant amount in tax if I knew for sure it was stimulating basic research.
Originally posted by inimalist
Science is the first type of explanation for the universe that humans have come up with that actually works. Religion, ideology, politics, all that stuff tries to explain things, but fail because of dogma or people refusing to reconsider their beliefs. In almost all other human endeavors at explaining our world, the standard required to believe something is true seems to be little more than "I believe it"...
I will have to disagree with you. Without religion, science would have never come into existence. As a matter of fact, religion was science of its time.
It is humans that have screwed up both religion and science. Just look at what people believe about science today: poles matter in science is the most appalling thing I have ever seen. After all, if 100% of all scientist say the Earth is flat, that only means that 100% of all scientist are wrong.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I will have to disagree with you. Without religion, science would have never come into existence. As a matter of fact, religion was science of its time.
that is sort of the exact point I'm making. We can demonstrate that religions or political ideologies are much less accurate in describing people or the universe than is science. In fact, religion is so poor at describing the world, history is rife with examples of people holding demonstrably false beliefs simply because some authority is telling them what is true (or rather, their mindset is, truth is told to me by X). Many religions use faith as a way to encourage their followers to believe despite evidence.
sure, religion at one point had a monopoly on what is true, because people weren't allowed to use a scientific type of questioning to challenge their sacred cows, hence the reason I feel science is beneficially subversive. If people required those in power to justify themselves with demonstrable evidence, religion couldn't be in control.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is humans that have screwed up both religion and science. Just look at what people believe about science today: poles matter in science is the most appalling thing I have ever seen. After all, if 100% of all scientist say the Earth is flat, that only means that 100% of all scientist are wrong.
well, you can believe that, but I think you are entirely mischaracterizing the nature of a scientific consensus.
additional, read what I wrote, I'm talking about a scientific mindset that challenges things by requiring demonstrable proof, not science as a collection of facts about the world that may change with better evidence, the interesting and important things about science have very little to do with the results of experiments.
or, think of it this way, 100% of scientists agreeing to something can become 0% with good evidence and logic. There is no real way to change the opinion of religion, politics, etc, if there is 100% consensus. Science, in this way, is vastly superior, as its truths are merely conditional upon the body of evidence supporting them.
"oh but people aren't perfect"
sure, again, more problematic for everything else, but ok, science suffers because it is humans that do science...
Originally posted by inimalist
that is sort of the exact point I'm making. We can demonstrate that religions or political ideologies are much less accurate in describing people or the universe than is science. In fact, religion is so poor at describing the world, history is rife with examples of people holding demonstrably false beliefs simply because some authority is telling them what is true (or rather, their mindset is, truth is told to me by X). Many religions use faith as a way to encourage their followers to believe despite evidence.
In 2,000 years people will say the same thing about science.
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, religion at one point had a monopoly on what is true, because people weren't allowed to use a scientific type of questioning to challenge their sacred cows, hence the reason I feel science is beneficially subversive. If people required those in power to justify themselves with demonstrable evidence, religion couldn't be in control.
Sacred cows have not gone away. Science is filled with them. It is difficult to see them now, but just wait. In time, people of the future will laugh at the stupid ideas we hold up as the truth today.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, you can believe that, but I think you are entirely mischaracterizing the nature of a scientific consensus.
No, I’m trying to stop you from making the same mistake you are placing on religion.
Originally posted by inimalist
additional, read what I wrote, I'm talking about a scientific mindset that challenges things by requiring demonstrable proof, not science as a collection of facts about the world that may change with better evidence, the interesting and important things about science have very little to do with the results of experiments.
I understood what you were saying. You are assuming we cannot find a better way of thinking in the future.
Originally posted by inimalist
or, think of it this way, 100% of scientists agreeing to something can become 0% with good evidence and logic. There is no real way to change the opinion of religion, politics, etc, if there is 100% consensus. Science, in this way, is vastly superior, as its truths are merely conditional upon the body of evidence supporting them.
Of course science is a superior way of thinking. Cars today are better then the ones from the past, and cars of the future will even be better. That doesn’t mean that cars of the past sucked. Do you see what I mean?
Please leave scientific dogma out of science.
Originally posted by inimalistso, in your small and narrow view of the world, I have two options:
1) elect someone who is anti-science, will cut science massively, and will not promote scientific thinking
2) live in a nation that prints money uncontrollably
just as a question, how much money do you think science gets? how much money do you REALLY think Paul is saving with science cuts, and more importantly, [b]how much do you think is being lost with the huge cutback to research?
A comedian [Gervais?] made a point about public washrooms being shut down that I feel is really relevant here. Essentially, "we are destroying things that will cost far more to rebuild than to maintain", and when you cut your nose off despite your face, there will come a day when you probably want that nose back.
thankfully, I live in a nation that isn't [as] crazy [as america], so I don't have to spend much time on such a false dichotomy as you have presented.
and yes, I'd happily pay a much more significant amount in tax if I knew for sure it was stimulating basic research. [/B]
Paul is looking to privatize the research where government is out and studies will be done quicker and efficiently instead of one central bureaucracy always looking over everything.
We are 16 trillion in debt and rising at 100 billion a month.... the cuts will come regardless.
After cutting the federal bureaucracies its not like research is going to stop and scientist will be jobless, relax. The taxpayer money is wasted on a lot of these honey hole programs. Prolonging 4 year research into 10 to 20 years getting as much money as possible.
Good luck doing what you want with no money.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Paul is looking to privatize the research where government is out and studies will be done quicker and efficiently instead of one central bureaucracy always looking over everything.
corporations really only fund applied science, whereas basic science, which is rarely immediately profitable, is rarely funded. Basic science is what drives long term innovation.
can you give me an example of what the creationist climate-skeptic wants to do? Put the discover institute and oil companies in charge of grants?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
The taxpayer money is wasted on a lot of these honey hole programs. Prolonging 4 year research into 10 to 20 years getting as much money as possible.
[citation needed]
to be frank, I would suggest neither you or Paul are in a position to claim how long a scientific study should take
Originally posted by inimalist
what have I said to suggest nothing better than science will come along?unless you are suggesting massive cuts in science are going to bring it along?
I'd be willing to bet it is scientists who are intimately involved in whatever it is that succeeds science...
You do know that the person who came up with the idea of the "Big Bang" was a priest?
I think we generally agree, but it is over generalizing. Some religions today fit exactly as you have said, but not all. Around 1/3 of the religions of the world support scientific thinking, and are willing to change their beliefs accountancy.
Check this out:
http://dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-crossroads
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You do know that the person who came up with the idea of the "Big Bang" was a priest?I think we generally agree, but it is over generalizing. Some religions today fit exactly as you have said, but not all. Around 1/3 of the religions of the world support scientific thinking, and are willing to change their beliefs accountancy.
Check this out:
http://dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-crossroads
yes, religions, when faced with clear evidence they are wrong, do change sometimes. There is no method to it, and it doesn't always happen, but sometimes it does, as, like I said before, science has undermined its authority
you do realize saying something is best is not the same as saying it is perfect
oh, the priest you are talking about is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
who was a professor of astrophysics and a practicing scientist... so that he is also religions is sort of moot...
besides, his main contribution to the big bang theory was providing the logic that tied together many earlier observations that suggested and expanding universe. It was Hubble who proved his claims, and later, cosmic microwave observations that provided empirical proof of the big bang in general.
I'm not trying to discredit him, but this isn't a situations akin to Newton locking himself away and designing calculus. This is a religious person who was a committed scientist who contributed to the major scientific zeitgeist of the day. Hardly the person who "came up with the idea".
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, religions, when faced with clear evidence they are wrong, do change sometimes. There is no method to it, and it doesn't always happen, but sometimes it does, as, like I said before, science has undermined its authorityyou do realize saying something is best is not the same as saying it is perfect
oh, the priest you are talking about is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
who was a professor of astrophysics and a practicing scientist... so that he is also religions is sort of moot...
besides, his main contribution to the big bang theory was providing the logic that tied together many earlier observations that suggested and expanding universe. It was Hubble who proved his claims, and later, cosmic microwave observations that provided empirical proof of the big bang in general.
I'm not trying to discredit him, but this isn't a situations akin to Newton locking himself away and designing calculus. This is a religious person who was a committed scientist who contributed to the major scientific zeitgeist of the day. Hardly the person who "came up with the idea".
Did you go to the link? It is what the Dalai Lama said about science.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you go to the link? It is what the Dalai Lama said about science.
I know what the dalai lama said about science. The guy in the lab next to me is a practicing buddhist, he gives talks about buddhism and neuroscience. we talk constantly about this stuff.
to me, that shows exactly what I am saying: the answers provided by science are superior to those provided by religion, hence why the dalai lama accepts them.
like, you could use the example of the mormon church changing its stance on race because of social pressure, its the same thing. It is scientific and secular truths which are so abundantly clearly true that religion can no longer oppose it and be successful.
please note, I'm not saying religious people are stupid, religious people have never contributed anything to human knowledge, religion is bad or that we would be better off if everyone were an atheist. I'm saying the scientific method has been the best thing humans have designed to seek truth in the world, and that it is inherently subversive to those in power because they don't want the type of uncertain truths that you get in science. Power and authority wants clear and unchanging answers which science has to challenge.