Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKcurly on February 24, 2004, 10:19:42 AM
-
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day.
I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)
-
People should agree with me more often.
-
Sure, except for the fact that you are wrong.
-
You're so closed-minded.
-
What are you saying Curly? You see the light and now endorse Bush? ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What are you saying Curly? You see the light and now endorse Bush? ;)
Science for the most part is about truth. Religion and politics are about "hot buttons." One should never confuse the two ...
I am a scientist. I also have my hot buttons. :)
curly
-
Science is full of rationals who make decisions based on an inner set of values and rules. Religion and Politics are full of Artisans who take thier values from those around them and want to have those around them adopt their values. The truth is secondary,comfort comes from being in the group and power comes from controling the groups values, even if wrong.
-
Yes, but Sagan was a god!
:cool:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yes, but Sagan was a god!
:cool:
Sagan was an alien vistor from a billion billion billion light years away.
-
What motivates a scientist to search for truth?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What motivates a scientist to search for truth?
Most of the scientists I know don't have a choice - it's a compulsion --- inner driven (and directed for that matter.)
curly
-
The difference between science and religion is that religion deals with objective truths. Not much room for "oops, that was wrong", its way more simple than that...either you believe, or you dont.
After you made that binary choice, you either have all the answers, or you turn to science looking for the answers to those questions that cannot be answered by man.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The difference between science and religion is that religion deals with objective truths. Not much room for "oops, that was wrong", its way more simple than that...either you believe, or you dont.
After you made that binary choice, you either have all the answers, or you turn to science looking for the answers to those questions that cannot be answered by man.
Hortland, I have a question. Are you sure you want "objective truths" and "either you believe, or you dont" in the same sentence?
Religion isn't about truth -- it's about faith. The facts (or lack thereof) cannot be established about religion.
curly
-
scientists are all frauds but it is extremely rare that one of em admits it... sagan is himself a perfect example.... or was..
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Hortland, I have a question. Are you sure you want "objective truths" and "either you believe, or you dont" in the same sentence?
Religion isn't about truth -- it's about faith. The facts (or lack thereof) cannot be established about religion.
curly
I guess the point I was trying to make was this: If you believe in God, then with that belief comes a set of truths. To any "believer" these are objective truths, not open for debate, these things just are.
If you go the path of science on the other hand, you will *never* have an objective truth.
Sorry if I was being unclear.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
scientists are all frauds but it is extremely rare that one of em admits it... sagan is himself a perfect example.... or was..
lazs
And how would you know that, Lazs?
curly
-
well.... I just can't get the image of that pompous ahole sagan on CNN explaining how (complete with computer model and charts) the world would be in a nuclear winter if the old sadman set the kuwait oil fields on fire....
He was interviewed daily on his theory and on the tube a lot.... till of course... well... he was proven to be completely full of it... but, being it was CNN and all... no explanation or apolodgy or retraction or whatever was ever made.
I don't claim to be the expert on the whole nuclear winter thing but I do know when the sun is still shining.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well.... I just can't get the image of that pompous ahole sagan on CNN explaining how (complete with computer model and charts) the world would be in a nuclear winter if the old sadman set the kuwait oil fields on fire....
He was interviewed daily on his theory and on the tube a lot.... till of course... well... he was proven to be completely full of it... but, being it was CNN and all... no explanation or apolodgy or retraction or whatever was ever made.
I don't claim to be the expert on the whole nuclear winter thing but I do know when the sun is still shining.
lazs
I was never a Sagan fan either. I was just reacting to the statement scientists are all frauds but it is extremely rare that one of em admits it... sagan is himself a perfect example.... or was...
I thought it was possible that a scientist exists somewhere who passed your fraud scrutiny. :)
curly
-
I don't claim to be the expert on the whole nuclear winter thing but I do know when the sun is still shining.
Sagan's head was in a place of no sunlight.
He was to science what Joyce Brothers is to psychology: he got on TV a lot.
ra
-
ah... so the person you quote you are willing to concede is a fraud?
lazs
-
Uh oh, you mean a theory was wrong?? It happens.
The difference is, in science, the theory will be changed/modified, and reanalyzed (real science, burning oil fields probably are more of a specualtion than a theory), whereas if religion is wrong and someone points it out, they are heretics/infidels/unbelievers, or dare I say it....[church lady] SATAN!!! [/church lady] :D
In the 'good ol' days' you'd be burned/drowned/hanged. Thank godzilla for progress! :lol
Cheers,
Spitter
-
Originally posted by Spitter
Thank godzilla for progress! :lol
Did somebody say "Godzilla"?
(http://www.dalekempire.com/62Godzilla4.jpg)
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
I thought it was possible that a scientist exists somewhere who passed your fraud scrutiny. :)
curly
Paul Vieille
-
Originally posted by ra
People should agree with me more often.
I would agree with you if you could stop crushing mice
-
God is a theory. :)
-
During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Dr. S. Fred Singer debated Carl Sagan on the impact of the Kuwaiti oil fires on American Broadcasting Company News "Nightline." Sagan said the smoke would loft into the upper atmosphere, disrupt the monsoons and lead to ecological disaster. Singer said such a view was ridiculous, that the smoke would go up only a few thousand feet and then rain out. Three days later, black rain began falling over Iran, which pretty much put an end to the speculation.
Sagan was wrong, Singer was right. Both are/were scientists.... go figure.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sagan was wrong, Singer was right. Both are/were scientists.... go figure.
True, I'm not sure what your point is? Again, just because someone is a scientist doesn't make them infallible. Unlike church clergy.
Oh wait, there are only 33,380 (or so) cults...err..sects of xianity, guess 33,379 of them are wrong? Occam's razor is your friend.
Cheers,
Spitter
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ah... so the person you quote you are willing to concede is a fraud?
lazs
Absolutely. Hell, I even quoted you one time. :)
I thought the quote was interesting. Even idjits are capable of wisdom occasionally.
curly
-
Originally posted by Spitter
True, I'm not sure what your point is? Again, just because someone is a scientist doesn't make them infallible. Unlike church clergy.
Oh wait, there are only 33,380 (or so) cults...err..sects of xianity, guess 33,379 of them are wrong? Occam's razor is your friend.
Cheers,
Spitter
Was making the point that science basically exists to be proven wrong. It is the basic rule of the scientific principle...... wrong is OK as long as you got a better answer. (I'm the choir Spitter... preach over that way)
-
Heh, yeah, I figured that. Sorry if it came across as anything other than tongue in cheek sarcasm. :D
Sing it choir brother!
Cheers,
Spitter
-
Damn, I was hoping for Scott Sagan.
Oh well
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Damn, I was hoping for Scott Sagan.
Oh well
-Sik
Don't you have homework or something?
-
Sagan was good at one thing: science divulgation in the field of astronomy.
He made a fool of himself because of his celebrity personna, giving his opinion in fields he wasn't qualified.
Cosmos is still my favourite and influenced me greatly when growing up.
Daniel
-
Cosmos was cool. I'm sure there are a few scientist types at NASA now thanks to that show.
Has anybody here ever read Steven Hawkings "A Brief History in Time"? i've most of it on mp3 (3.5 hours of it but it cuts off :( ) man there is some DEEEEEEEP watermelon in there maaaaaan. When he gets down to the quantom level talking about quarks and negative quarks and blueons and all the subparticles. :eek: The freaky part is he explains it so even I can understand it. Cool book anyway..... The prologue is by Carl Sagan.