Drawing tenuous conclusions from proven facts is, quite simply, bad science, and such conclusions are therefore not considered scientific knowledge.
You're describing someone who obviously isn't a scientist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
The very basis of science is that you never accept anything on faith, even if it's a long held belief.
The falliability of science is one of its cornerstones. Taking a scientific theory and proving it wrong, or providing a better alternative (and backing it up), is what the whole damn thing is about. Without accepting that everything currently believed could be incorrect, modern science wouldn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
This thread needs to provide more entertainment, or have some relation to something remotely entertaining and not quite as serious.
http://pawell13.by.ru/tlz/grabs/4acv18/418-44.jpg
And I've never met anyone dedicated to science who thinks it is Infallible so your argument is kind of pointless.
Actually, yes. You have to have faith that everything around you is real before you can accept science. Ultimately everything comes down to faith because you can't really "prove" anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
True, because they have no way of proving the Big Bang theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
There are a lot of things you can't really prove, so the whole idea is to come up with theories, test them out, try to disprove them, and see which one is left when all others have been refuted.
Then you have a theory that is probably true, but you keep trying to refute it and come up with alternatives anyway, because that's how science works.
The possibility that everything around us is not real does not mean that someone's belief in its existence is based on faith. We have our tools and we make use of them to test our environment and form conclusions about it while being aware of the limitations on our understanding. That isn't faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
If something can't be absolutely proven, then you simply don't believe it is absolutely true. At the same time, if everything you understand suggests that it is true, it'd be stupid to act as if it wasn't.
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
And gamevet, the Big Bang theory is based on observance of red shift, radio waves, etc. It is not based on pure conjecture. Furthermore, science doesn't "prove" things. Rather, it comes up with the best possible solution to a problem, and the solution has to meet a certain standard (ie, can it be used to predict things accurately?). The Big Bang theory didn't just come out of some scientist's ass and then everyone else accepted it, and just because it's the current theory that's widely believed doesn't mean there aren't scientists attempting to clarify it, or hell, even disprove it. There's a Nobel prize in store for anyone who does
And before this goes on any further: theory does not mean the same thing in science that it does in layman's terms. It does not mean "a guess." The closest approximation of that would be "hypothesis." Please do not say "it's only a theory" because in scientific terms, that means "it's only a conclusion that has stood up to plenty of testing and provides accurate predictions" which I'm pretty sure isn't the point you're trying to make. Thank you in advance.
Unless you are hung like Mandingo, IDBTN.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
Just couldn't resist dragging me into this could you?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
For this I will burn your village and tape your women.
For you it shall be the day that Master of 7s graced your existence for me it will be Thursday.
Well those may prove that the universe is expanding, but how can they make a whole universe out of a couple of atoms?Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez