Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Science rocks (and is not a religion).
#1
DM and DE linky:  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803120620.htm

Science rocks.

And it is not a religion.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#2
I have two good examples.

One, buying a dragon from the crystal shop, taking the piss out of the woman who owns it, when she said "I don't like science". I pointed out that she didn't seem to mind the science that drove her cash register.

Two, in the pharmacy, waiting for some antibiotics and steroids for my boy's bad chest infection. The dozy cunt tries to sell me some naturopathic shit.

"No, we don't do placebos in our house. We prefer science." Sez me.

"Oh, that's a different argument." She responds.

"No, sorry, there is no argument - science works, bullshit doesn't."

End of conversation.

If only more people recognised how much science does rock. Thankfully, my kids love science and we do lots of it.

The rest of the world can just go fuck itself.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#3
Yea Sparks, that's what we need some positive contribution.

Fascinating read.  It must be great comfort to find that we have an accurate measurement of such a massive component of the universe.  So we know it's there.  It's just that 'we' don't seem too sure just what it is.  Is that right? 

excerpts:
Quote:Most notably, this result supports the theory that 26 percent of the universe is in the form of mysterious dark matter and that space is filled with an also-unseen dark energy, which is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe and makes up 70 percent

I don't recall any of we dumb people questioning the existence of the mysterious and unseen component.  
Only indulging in some whimsical theorizing over what it may be and what could be found concerning it's affects on the surrounding visible universe.  At least that was all I was whimsying about.



Quote:"The Dark Energy Survey has already delivered some remarkable discoveries and measurements, and they have barely scratched the surface of their data," said Fermilab Director Nigel Lockyer. "Today's world-leading results point forward to the great strides DES will make toward understanding dark energy in the coming years."


Seriously Sparks, I do 'get' more of that than you probably believe, and I do unequivocally accept the facts and figures revealed by their research. 

I also deeply appreciate it when people respond to what bugs them with an argument putting their case rather than just a short sentence saying 'bullshit'.  Thank you for that.

 But it's my nature to nitpick.  And I have a couple tiny nits to pick in the above. 
It's not an objection to any of the facts.  It's not even picking on the article, but rather picking out a point that you have chosen to allow to elude you.

 I don't waffle along with Stanky  out of any belief in wooness.  You'll have to take my word for it that there is no file in my memory system labelled 'Woo'.  It does not compute.  Woo is simply something for which there is an explanation we haven't found yet.
I'm fascinated by coincidence, but I attach nothing more than a quirk in the law of averages to it.  Don't misread me.

Questioning the nature of something, or even the explanation of something, or looking for more than meets the eye in something does not indicate any quest for some supernatural cause.  Got that yet??  I'm pretty sure I've been a skeptic, and an atheist even longer than you have!

So the nit picks are with you not with the article.

A question.  If it seems easy and normal to those scientists to use words like "mysterious" in relation to dark matter,  and "unseen" in relation to dark energy, why is it so offensive to you that we/I sometimes use those words to describe a 'whatif?'

Are you more hard core rigidly obsessed with a language consisting of only facts and figures than those scientists are??   

What does the word 'mysterious' mean??  I thought it meant unknown.  So it seems do they, and they're not ashamed to admit it.  Why does theorising about the unknown bug you so badly??
Reply
#4
(08-09-2017, 02:14 AM)The Atheist Wrote:  I have two good examples.

One, buying a dragon from the crystal shop, taking the piss out of the woman who owns it, when she said "I don't like science". I pointed out that she didn't seem to mind the science that drove her cash register.

Two, in the pharmacy, waiting for some antibiotics and steroids for my boy's bad chest infection. The dozy cunt tries to sell me some naturopathic shit.

"No, we don't do placebos in our house. We prefer science." Sez me.

"Oh, that's a different argument." She responds.

"No, sorry, there is no argument - science works, bullshit doesn't."

End of conversation.

If only more people recognised how much science does rock. Thankfully, my kids love science and we do lots of it.

The rest of the world can just go fuck itself.

You reminded me of this site, which I show to folks who say, "What's the harm in...?".
"Who's with me?." - stanky
Reply
#5
Despite philosophical differences, I'm hardly a purveyor of woo.
I'm actually a huge fan of science.

It's a bizarre position to be in; as if my disdain for Hillary hints at a fondness for Trump.

Yes, the scientific method is self-correcting in time...my objection lies with its initial hubris and arrogance and the time lag for corrections.
Sparky put it nicely with his admiration for plutonium.
Reply
#6
(08-09-2017, 06:05 AM)grayman Wrote:  You reminded me of this site, which I show to folks who say, "What's the harm in...?".

I think you got the wrong link on that one - you've put the climate one in again.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#7
Di asks: " Why does theorising about the unknown bug you so badly?? "

It doesn't. Sorry I didn't make it clear to you: What I object to is speculation being pawned off as fact. I don't recall seeing you do this much, but stankster does, on occasion. And when called on it, can sometimes go into a Blue Funk over it.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#8
(08-09-2017, 01:08 PM)The Atheist Wrote:  
(08-09-2017, 06:05 AM)grayman Wrote:  You reminded me of this site, which I show to folks who say, "What's the harm in...?".

I think you got the wrong link on that one - you've put the climate one in again.

Confused

Thanks for catching that. I have fixed the link.
"Who's with me?." - stanky
Reply
#9
Stank says: "Yes, the scientific method is self-correcting in time...my objection lies with its initial hubris and arrogance and the time lag for corrections."

What you seek is perfection. You will never find it.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#10
Damn! They left out the Paleo Diet!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)