so....we know that the world is flat, but.....

sourdough

surferdude wrote:

How about leeches could cure a cold. Science has told us lots that has been complete and utter nonsense. It will continue to do so. It is getting more accurate at some things though.

You could hardly call any of that science though. Science was more just a bunch of anecdotal observations and superstition. Wouldn't you agree that science is much different now? Its a far too simplistic and obviously flawed example.

surferdude

sourdough wrote:

You could hardly call any of that science though. Science was more just a bunch of anecdotal observations and superstition. Wouldn't you agree that science is much different now? Its a far too simplistic and obviously flawed example.

And 500 hundred years from now they'll look back and say the same about our current science. So knowing that does that mean "You could hardly call any of that science."

rightondude

Milestone wrote:

I was being sarcastic when I said to close the thread.

You were being serious when you repremanded me for starting a topic that apparently has been beaten to death.

It wasn't a reprimand. It was just a previously experienced comment on the matter.

I wasn't implying that you give up, and not try find out for yourself.

SundaySilence

sourdough wrote:

You could hardly call any of that science though. Science was more just a bunch of anecdotal observations and superstition. Wouldn't you agree that science is much different now? Its a far too simplistic and obviously flawed example.

No, the scientific method was developed by Aristotle. It was never a bunch of anecdotes. Leeches was not science, medicine at the time of leeches wasn't science. Although leeches are used in medicine today.

Science generally builds on itself Newton's theories were expanded by Einstein, but it certainly doesn't void them into nonsense.

sourdough

surferdude wrote:

And 500 hundred years from now they'll look back and say the same about our current science. So knowing that does that mean "You could hardly call any of that science."

I'm not so sure about that. We spend millions of dollars, years of training and practice, and we've had a TON of breakthroughs in technology, medicine, and a much clearer picture of the natural world. I'm not saying that in the future they won't shake their heads at some things we've done or thought, but I think its undeniable that science plays a way bigger part in everyday life than it did back then when science was practiced by a very few people and based in belief rather than tested hypothesis.

surferdude

SundaySilence wrote:

No, the scientific method was developed by Aristotle. It was never a bunch of anecdotes. Leeches was not science, medicine at the time of leeches wasn't science. Although leeches are used in medicine today.

Science generally builds on itself Newton's theories were expanded by Einstein, but it certainly doesn't void them into nonsense.

You sound like the Catholic Church regarding infallability of the Pope. So because it was bad science you don't think it should count as science.

sourdough

SundaySilence wrote:

No, the scientific method was developed by Aristotle. It was never a bunch of anecdotes. Leeches was not science, medicine at the time of leeches wasn't science. Although leeches are used in medicine today.

Science generally builds on itself Newton's theories were expanded by Einstein, but it certainly doesn't void them into nonsense.

Right, but the majority of science during the medieval times and even until more recently was based on belief and was much more philisophical in nature. The scientific theory may have existed but how often applied?

surferdude

sourdough wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. We spend millions of dollars, years of training and practice, and we've had a TON of breakthroughs in technology, medicine, and a much clearer picture of the natural world. I'm not saying that in the future they won't shake their heads at some things we've done or thought, but I think its undeniable that science plays a way bigger part in everyday life than it did back then when science was practiced by a very few people and based in belief rather than tested hypothesis.

So based on this and a lack of accurate climate model, we only then have an unproven hypothesis regarding climate change.

Rhinocerous Surprise

miskin wrote:

i pity the godless like i pity the tramp in the street.

to be an athiest is to have no self respect.

No, I have plenty of self respect, thank you very much.

How does believing in a god make you respect yourself anymore? Surely being an atheist means having no respect for the concept of god?
Unless every Catholic believes that he/she is god (hint: they don't), your point is invalid...

SundaySilence

surferdude wrote:

So based on this and a lack of accurate climate model, we only then have an unproven hypothesis regarding climate change.

There is an accurate climate model. I find the hostility to such notions puzzling. Afterall, these folks also split an atom and put a man on the moon.

sourdough

surferdude wrote:

So based on this and a lack of accurate climate model, we only then have an unproven hypothesis regarding climate change.

We lack a concensus or a theory on the outcome of climate change, but we do not have a lack of evidence or consensus of its occurance and that humans are contributing factors.

surferdude

SundaySilence wrote:

There is an accurate climate model. I find the hostility to such notions puzzling. Afterall, these folks also split an atom and put a man on the moon.

Where's the next tornado going to hit? How hot will it be three weeks from now in Seattle? How much rain will Seatle recieve this year? If we reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% this year what effect will that have on the temperature in Miami four years from now?

Please refer to this accurate climate model. Because I can tell you that my local weather lady on tv sure doesn't have access to it. She's cute, I'd love to point it out for her. Her ratings will surely go up if she 100% accurate.

Milestone

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

How does believing in a god make you respect yourself anymore? Surely being an atheist means having no respect for the concept of god?

Because.....strangley enough, strongly religious folks happen to be some of the most close-minded folks out there.

surferdude

sourdough wrote:

We lack a concensus or a theory on the outcome of climate change, but we do not have a lack of evidence or consensus of its occurance and that humans are contributing factors.

Just to give you a hard time...you are saying that the hypothesis is proven just not accurate. How inaccurate does a hypothesis get to be before it is unproven or proved false?

angelica

Milestone wrote:

Because.....strangley enough, strongly religious folks happen to be some of the most close-minded folks out there.

I'll agree, of course, with the operative word being "some"....

It's pretty clear to me that some of the other most closed-minded are the dogmatically non-religious folk. Two sides of the coin. When both sides become more balanced, understanding begins to take place.

sourdough

surferdude wrote:

Just to give you a hard time...you are saying that the hypothesis is proven just not accurate. How inaccurate does a hypothesis get to be before it is unproven or proved false?

The theory is proven (that the climate is changing and that humans have a role in it) what is unproven is what the consequence will look like. Where will be hotter, where will be wetter, will warming be even globally, or will some parts be heated more than others etc...

Sorta like we have proven that carcinogens will give you cancer if exposed to them long enough, but we don't know what cancers will appear and where and when.

surferdude

sourdough wrote:

The theory is proven (that the climate is changing and that humans have a role in it) what is unproven is what the consequence will look like. Where will be hotter, where will be wetter, will warming be even globally, or will some parts be heated more than others etc...

Sorta like we have proven that carcinogens will give you cancer if exposed to them long enough, but we don't know what cancers will appear and where and when.

I don't doubt the general hypothesis in the least. I do continually question our impact.

Even more puzzling is that carcinogens will only give some cancer.

Milestone

angelica wrote:

I'll agree, of course, with the operative word being "some"....

It's pretty clear to me that some of the other most closed-minded are the dogmatically non-religious folk. Two sides of the coin. When both sides become more balanced, understanding begins to take place.

Yes, I almost always try to use the word "some".

I can see your point about non-religious folks too.....but you never hear of non-religious missionaries trying to convince the world that there is no god. But you often hear of religious missionaries trying to convince the world that there IS a god.

SundaySilence

surferdude wrote:

Where's the next tornado going to hit? How hot will it be three weeks from now in Seattle? How much rain will Seatle recieve this year? If we reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% this year what effect will that have on the temperature in Miami four years from now?

Please refer to this accurate climate model. Because I can tell you that my local weather lady on tv sure doesn't have access to it. She's cute, I'd love to point it out for her. Her ratings will surely go up if she 100% accurate.

From the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Royal Society (UK), Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia), Science Council of Japan (Japan), Royal Society of Canada (Canada), Academie des Sciences (France), Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher (Germany), Indian National Sciency Academy (India), Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

SundaySilence

surferdude wrote:

Even more puzzling is that carcinogens will only give some cancer.

Some get hit by a bus first.