BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:08 PM

OK, so many people "don't believe in" science. But science is a process and not a belief system. So, if you don't accept the scientific method as a process for gaining new knowledge, please describe your own alternative process for discovery that stands up to scrutiny by impartial parties (of any religion) and yields reproducible results. Please explain how this process works. Step by step.

Please also explain why the scientific method *doesn't work* since your process is obviously the "right" one. And show examples of how it has worked in real life and how we can use this process ourselves to make new discoveries.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:17 PM

Why, it's simple! What I think is right and correct and anything else is wrong and incorrect. And I can reproduce whatever I think anytime you want -- loudly and with fist-banging-on-the-table.

You can use this method to make new discoveries just by asking me. I can provide discoveries on request and back them up with real, fresh, mathematical stuff and statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:20 PM

Warning: This will be a short thread. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:03 PM

Hitchens' Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Very useful.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:22 PM

It is an interesting question whether there are inherent limits to the Scientific method, and that is not the same as brow-beating people who believe in God. As I've said many times on this site I am by nature a scientist, and have worked in the scientific fields almost all my life (so far!) but with Godel's theorem on the one hand and chaos theory on the other, there are limitations to the things that mathematics can describe (and as a mathematician I would therefore say science can describe). There is also a very large observable universe out there. I would say it is not self-evident the one is inherently capable of describing the other completely.

Which, as I say, does not have anything to do with religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:27 PM

I've literally never met anyone who doesn't believe in science, saulgoldie.

I have met people who also believe in numerous other things as well (virtually everyone does), but certainly met no one who does NOT believe in science...or who would oppose use of the scientific method to solve a problem which is accessible through the scientific method.

For instance, it takes some understanding of science to design and build an automobile, make it run properly, and repair it. I haven't seen anyone who doesn't already know that and accept it, regardless of whether or not they also believe in some other things as well as science.

The other things a person may believe in are not alternatives to science. They are simply other areas of interest in life, period. Art, for instance, is not an alternative to science, nor are ethics, nor is spirituality, nor is religion, nor is philosophy, nor poetry, nor romance, nor aesthetics, etc. They do not intrinsically oppose science. They simply indicate a completely different area of concern and interest in life, arrived at through a completely different process.

As such, to declare a supposed war between any of them and science is asinine, and is only asserted by the most rigid and uncomprehending persons in any given area of thought (scientific or not).

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:32 PM

Alternative? Ignorant asshole fundagelical fuckwits. And the Tea Party.

Q.E.D.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: pdq
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:40 PM

Little Hawk's post nailed it.

Good work, Birdfeathers.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:43 PM

As most larger religions are based on scriptures going back between one and three thousand years, and accepting them as written to be trying to make sense of the world they observed, the God hypothesis really was the science of the day.

The issue here is one of tradition. As we get better at questioning what we observed, if became obvious that the God explanation became less satisfactory. However by this time too many people found other uses for God, especially when used for social control, hence Galileo's trial, the ridiculing of Darwin and the various geographic locations of Dumbfuckistan.

I have no issue in calling the cloud of what we don't understand yet God, as it has to be called something and that term has suited for a hell of a long time. But I have no hang ups with this God file getting thinner as time and knowledge move forward.

Sadly, many would get their way and control others by stuffing the God file with more documents.

In a world where people scream for religious equality but are actually wanting religious privilege, poor old science has to carry forward without laughing too much eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:03 PM

This just in from a Georgia congressman who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology:

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior."

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:09 PM

Never having heard of the idiot before, no prize for guessing he is a Repugnican representative.

Aren't they all?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:17 PM

That's a peach, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:28 PM

I've literally never met anyone who doesn't believe in science...

Hard to believe you've never met a fundagelical "Christian"(sic) but then perhaps you lead a sheltered existence, LH.

Or, you're just blowing smoke, perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:20 PM

All you have to do is ask me!! I'll tell you the truth! Have I ever lied to you yet??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:32 PM

When these righties get real sick they can't get enough science...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:38 PM

We're not ignoring you, Rap- we're just cogitatin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 11:50 AM

Hard to believe you've never met a fundagelical "Christian"(sic) but then perhaps you lead a sheltered existence,

There aren't actually all that many of them around in the civilised world.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 12:27 PM

Unfortunately it's not about how many there are around but how much political influence they have, how much media time they're given, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 12:48 PM

Fundamentalists believe in some science only. The kind, for example, that allows their cars to run and makes planes fly them through the air.

They do believe in math, except for the parts that went into developing things like carbon dating and so forth.

There are also tenured academics (mainly in literature, women's studies, and anthropology departments) who (claim to) believe that "science" is just a "Western (male) construct" without real validity elsewhere. So, like, if shamanism or goddess worship works for you, it's just as true.

[IRONY WARNING:] It's all subjective! What's true for me may not be true for you! Like science! [IRONY OVER]

This was big movement twenty, twenty-five years ago, but it seems to have run out of steam since then. I'm not sure any normal people were affected. (As if I know who's normal.)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 01:16 PM

There aren't actually all that many of them around in the civilised world.

Civilization aside, Kevin, there are millions of fundagelicals running amok- perhaps fewer in the UK, but believe me, they're a positive infestation in the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 01:37 PM

I suppose it depends on what you mean by civilised...

Actually civilised isn't really the right word. The thing is, however civilised the USA undoubtedly is, it really is a pretty strange place compared to other developed countries, and this is one notable case.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 07:43 PM

We have examples (of fuckwits who deny science) from the UK who post here. Some come from near Foots Cray.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 10:21 PM

There aren't actually all that many of them around in the civilised world.

Sorry McG, but plentiful and valid scientific evidence refutes your statement.

Obviously, you've not spent any real time in Kansas, or Texas, or Oklahoma, or Arkansas, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or ... well, there's too many to list.

The real question that needs a scientific answer is how the 120,000 active members of the Megachurch down the road who show up to picket things they're told to hate all get to Sunday services in the 16 cars in the church lot on Sunday morning. That one is sort of a puzzle, but I suppose we can assume they're "transported"(?).

John

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 01:20 AM

An alternative to Science? Well, I'd suggest imagination and poetry and song and dreaming and creativity. I wonder if Science, as most people perceive it, could have come up with Quantum Physics. Science is certainly a valid perspective, but I question whether it is or should be the only perspective. To deify Science (with a capital "S") may be as problematic as biblical fundamentalism.

Make room for diversity of thought, people. The wider our perspective, the better off we are.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 02:39 AM

Saul. There are lots of cases where "the scientific method" has not worked, where other methods have. Lots of things have been discovered by accident. Lots of things have been utilized without the user knowing how they work. I think that Joe makes a valid point. I do not believe that Darwin or Newton used the scientific method to come up with their greatest insights. On the other hand, the scientific method has been used to attempt to verify gravity and evolution. In gravity's case, Einstein saw flaws and proposed a better fitting theory. In the case of evolution it is obviously impossible to recreate the original conditions for independent verification. Though there certainly is a lot of observational data.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 03:48 AM

Hey Joe!

Fully agree that the wider our perspective, the better off we are. Just bear in mind that some perspectives are there to stifle others...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 04:27 AM

I wonder if those opposed to Science (for religious or other reasons) would stoically refuse medical tests and treatment (based on Science) if they or their children were gravely or life-threateningly ill? They would need Xrays and scans, anaesthesia, anti-infection precautions, technological equipment, medication etc etc, all the results of fine scientific research and advancement. Or would they choose to just sit on the ground and pray?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 05:52 AM

Joe: Make room for diversity of thought, people. The wider our perspective, the better off we are.

Sure, keep an open mind, up to a point....but if it's TOO open, your brain is likely to fall out through the hole!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:02 AM

"Or would they choose to just sit on the ground and pray?"

Do you know any Jehovah's Witnesses?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:00 AM

That is not exactly the case with JW they will take medicie and undergo treatments that do not require transfused blood.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:03 AM

What would Einstein say about God vs Science?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:06 AM

"That is not exactly the case with JW they will take medicie and undergo treatments that do not require transfused blood."

Yeah, I know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:26 AM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical8.htm

Religious groups that have different views about medical treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 04:18 PM

Christian scientists do reject a lot of scientific (medical) interventions which has resulted in avoidable tragedies.
There is at least one poster on this site who appears to have a visceral hatred of religion and those who hold religious beliefs. In spite of his protestations to the contrary much of what he says suggests that he responds to science as a belief system rather than a process.
Most people of faith that I know have no problem with embracing science. Fundamentalist atheists have a very rigid view of religion and refuse to credit believers with the ability to negotiate their way through to a personal position which enables them to accommodate more than one idea.
Sorry about the portmanteau posting, I've just caught up with the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 04:42 PM

Mind you, when Aids cropped up and affected people through blood transfusions, I imagine a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses found themselves thinking "I told you so".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 05:29 PM

Obviously, you've not spent any real time in Kansas, or Texas, or Oklahoma, or Arkansas, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota

True enough. But that's more or less the point I was making.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 05:39 PM

I hate science. I don't want Obamacare. I just want to live and die the way God intends. No doctors.
(:-( P)=

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 05:52 PM

Henty K-
Go ahead. Be sure to enjoy your life....it's not apt to last long. And you don't seem tro hate science enough to ditch your computer and leave the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:02 PM

""And you don't seem tro hate science enough to ditch your computer and leave the Internet.""

ZZZZIIINNNNGGG!

Direct hit Dick!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:08 PM

I hate computers. I hate everything I don't understand.
(:-( P)=

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:22 PM

No point in trying to argue with a tease...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:35 PM

Yep.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:08 PM

Less point intrying to communicate with an asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 12:20 AM

And Mr. Paul Broun, a Republican congressman who serves on ths Science Advisory Committee, pronounced recently that Evolution, embryology and the Big Bang Theory were "lies, from the pit of Hell"

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 12:01 PM

...and Paul Broun serves WITH Todd Akin of "legitimate rape" fame.

This situation is becoming intolerable.... when fundamentalist religion, propounded thru 'supposedly' competent congresspeople is allowed to distort sane educational matters.

I did not sign up to live in a theocracy. I am afraid crap like this will affect my desire to allow NON-crazy believers to practice freely. I do not want that.... but somehow, the Paul Brouns of the country need to be reined in.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 05:25 PM

Jack the Sailor-
"There are lots of cases where "the scientific method" has not worked, where other methods have."
Depends upon what you mean by "work'. THe scientific method is a means of gaining understanding. In that respect, I know of nothing else that can replace it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 06:26 PM

Not true, Dick - ignorance, stupidity, lies, distortions & fairytales replace the scientific method all the time, 24/7.

More's the pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 06:30 PM

Here's an idea...

All folks who don't believe in science wear bracelets that read "DO NOT TREAT" in case they need medical attention which, of course, is based on science...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:29 PM

Greg-
Cute but ignoring something isn't creating an alternative. You don't need scientific method to make an accidental discovery that chewing willow bark helps alleviate a headache; you do need it to find out why, and use that knowledge make aspirin.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:41 PM

It seems there are few or none of the Repubs on the 'science' committee who are not off the deep end at the right aide of the pool....and maybe the gene pool.