Scientism

1…78101213…17

Comments

  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    metsfan531941 wrote:
    i love how i come up in a fucking science debate, now thats something to ponder about. haha

    where have you been? i wondered the connection too.
    nice to see you again.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Rats of Multa wrote:
    no, science tries[/] to go beneath human perception to objective reality, but reality is not entirely objective -- life exists, and therein emotions exist,.. and although emotions may have their roots in the intercourse of physical matter, their ends are not totally physical [hence the existence of the term "metaphysical"], and therefore science is endlessly trumped by the constant enquires of philosophy.

    besides: what is a photon?

    A photon is a piece of matter of a particular size that vibrates in space and time at a certain frequency. Just like every other piece of matter in the universe. Everything vibrates and moves around. Some are big...some are small and the scale both up and down in size is infinite.

    Xrays and Gamma rays are also photons but they are smaller in size and vibrate faster. They are absolutely everywhere, and all the time, but they move too fast so we just can't see them with our eyes. We can trap them on Xray film though as proof that they were there (which explains why Xrays are reverse images). Neutrinos which are even smaller...are so small they can move seemingly right through matter itself. Every single second billions of neutrinos are zooming right through your body...we are being bathed by them inside and out. They keep on going and travel right through the earth itself for that matter.

    Increasingly smaller particles relative to our perception move faster and faster...and faster...and faster to infinity. Not because they are going any faster than us...it is all to do with the perspective of the observer. Which is why I say that beyond quarks or Quantum magnitude study are infinitely smaller observable phenomena to dissect and study forever.

    cool stuff...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I don't see how the existence of a god or not has anything to do with my personal determination.

    This is where your logic goes askew, to me.
    If you assume to know what "god" means to the poster you are replying to, isn't that bad science?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Gary Carter
    Gary Carter Posts: 14,077
    onelongsong wrote:
    where have you been? i wondered the connection too.
    nice to see you again.
    ive been around, i feel odd being around thes parts. nice to see u to, i dont remember u at all
    Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
    Sammi: Wanna just break up?

  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    lucylespian wrote:
    True , it's a forum for debate, but lacking personal face to face contact. Typed communications are easy to misinterpret and can easily offend.Being pointedly nice to people is one way of avoiding this.
    Also, I duno about you, but I come here to have fun, and smileys are good for that. I agree that liking someone does not make them right.
    You might not get lonely at work, but I do. Being right at the expense of being liked is not much fun either, though, so to come back on topic, maybe that has something to do with 'Scientism" being despised, or equivalent to an insult.
    Science IS concerned with being right, whether or not people like the outcome. Often they don't and since they can't fight teh facts, they shoot the messenger instead.


    we're friends debating. of course we say hello or other things to recognise a friend entering the room (or debate). politeness is not banned from debates. it's encouraged.
  • lucylespian
    lucylespian Posts: 2,403
    gue_barium wrote:
    This is where your logic goes askew, to me.
    If you assume to know what "god" means to the poster you are replying to, isn't that bad science?

    No, cos it's not science at all. It's just an assumption. Not every thought or conversation is science. Now if he was to formulate or test a hypothesis based on that assumption, that would be bad science.
    Music is not a competetion.
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Actually we can, it's just improbable.

    Just as we can only assume that how we have interpreted the past and the present is correct. We can test and theorize and experiment and document and challenge, but we CAN NEVER KNOW ABSOLUTELY that what we have accepted as fact so far is correct.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • Rats of Multa
    Rats of Multa Posts: 250
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

    cool stuff...

    i agree. i'm kind of like a photography dude or whatever, so i do in fact know a little bit about the properties of light,... i was simply posing that question due to the line of conversation occurring between myself and Ahnimus, as i was hoping to show that even the most stringent, unbiased scientific experimentations often provide results that are anything but ubiquitous and/or "objective". thanks for the reply though, light is certainly one of the most wonderful and amazing facts of existence, even if we dont have much certifiable knowledge regarding the phenomenon.
    we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
    to dust i guess,
    forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    lucylespian wrote:
    True , it's a forum for debate, but lacking personal face to face contact. Typed communications are easy to misinterpret and can easily offend.Being pointedly nice to people is one way of avoiding this.
    Also, I duno about you, but I come here to have fun, and smileys are good for that. I agree that liking someone does not make them right.
    You might not get lonely at work, but I do. Being right at the expense of being liked is not much fun either, though, so to come back on topic, maybe that has something to do with 'Scientism" being despised, or equivalent to an insult.
    Science IS concerned with being right, whether or not people like the outcome. Often they don't and since they can't fight teh facts, they shoot the messenger instead.

    I agree in most part, I just don't have the luxury of time to sift through garbage posts to find the actual responses all the time. And the smilies give me a headache ;)

    Yesterday there was one post by Rats of Multa that was an entire page of smilies, my computer locked up and when it did display a sharp pain went through my eye through my visual system and into my frontal lobe.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    metsfan531941 wrote:
    ive been around, i feel odd being around thes parts. nice to see u to, i dont remember u at all

    well thanks a hell of a lot. has it been that long?

    so what's your opinion about all this science talk? and are you psychic to jump in when your name is mentioned?
  • Rats of Multa
    Rats of Multa Posts: 250
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I agree in most part, I just don't have the luxury of time to sift through garbage posts to find the actual responses all the time. And the smilies give me a headache ;)

    Yesterday there was one post by Rats of Multa that was an entire page of smilies, my computer locked up and when it did display a sharp pain went through my eye through my visual system and into my frontal lobe.


    would you mind citing this post, i tend to have serious doubts about your truthiness now -- that is if your frontal lobes wont implode.
    we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
    to dust i guess,
    forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    lucylespian wrote:
    No, cos it's not science at all. It's just an assumption. Not every thought or conversation is science. Now if he was to formulate or test a hypothesis based on that assumption, that would be bad science.

    You're still assuming (or acknowledging) some knowledge of what "god" is.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Corroboration. Science is very systematic and weens out false claims. Personal opinion or perspective does nothing of the sort. It's complete nonsense.

    Ah corroboration! How STUPID of me not to have seen that!

    Science does not ween out false claims and is not systematic in a lot of cases. In a lot of cases science is exactly personal opinion and perspective AND it's all about trial and error. Nothing to do with some greater mental capacity, which you seem to be advocating. Science is people working toward an answer and finding like minded people to support that outcome.

    NOT that different to religion in that respect I have to say at this point.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    onelongsong wrote:
    ... and are you psychic to jump in when your name is mentioned?
    I was wondering this very same thing. It looks like metsy has an interest in scientism...or science....or something. :) Either way, he appeared on cue, as though somehow connected to Ahnimus............
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    gue_barium wrote:
    You're still assuming (or acknowledging) some knowledge of what "god" is.
    interesting. So are you saying he acknowledge that god at least exists as a concept? Or are you saying something else.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Gary Carter
    Gary Carter Posts: 14,077
    onelongsong wrote:
    well thanks a hell of a lot. has it been that long?

    so what's your opinion about all this science talk? and are you psychic to jump in when your name is mentioned?
    dude its be at least year if not more. my take on this whole science is hey whatever u believe in and makes u happy and get by in life, is cool with me.yes iam psychic
    Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
    Sammi: Wanna just break up?

  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    angelica wrote:
    interesting. So are you saying he acknowledge that god at least exists as a concept? Or are you saying something else.

    I'm saying, if he were true to "scientism" he wouldn't debate "god" like he does. I've observed, when he does, it is under the assumption he knows what "god" is. That's not good science.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    onelongsong wrote:
    have i been able to make something in your house move from accross the earth?

    :) Well I think so. BUT I'm clearly a moron so what would I know? :)

    I'm SURE I probably imagined it! :p Oh that's right!! I can't be SURE of anything other than science. Silly, silly me!! :)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    gue_barium wrote:
    I'm saying, if he were true to "scientism" he wouldn't debate "god" like he does. I've observed, when he does, it is under the assumption he knows what "god" is. That's crappy science.


    i agree. if he were talking against gays he would be called a homophobe. maybe he's a divinephobe? he talks about God more than anyone on this board.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    onelongsong wrote:
    i agree. if he were talking against gays he would be called a homophobe. maybe he's a divinephobe? he talks about God more than anyone on this board.

    Scientifically speaking, I think we may have an acute case of closet agnosticism on our hands.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.

Categories