creation museum (3 Viewers)

[Bladez]

If that were true in the way you mean it to be, it would mean that we live in a universe devoid of certainty; that each second would be utterly unpredictable.

We have some excellent ideas about how the world works, including the theory of evolution. We use these ideas to make predictions about the world. There is never any complete certainty. But the predictions made by our ideas have been right so far, so we are confident they'll be right again.

 

[MDR]

We have some excellent ideas about how the world works, including the theory of evolution. We use these ideas to make predictions about the world. There is never any complete certainty. But the predictions made by our ideas have been right so far, so we are confident they'll be right again.

By 'we', do you mean you and me?

 

[Bladez]

so... if you dont believe that 1+1 = 2, and I have seen the proof for this, its an extremely complicated proof, if you reject all of science, and reject that you or I or anything exists then you can also say that you do not believe in evolutionary science.
Although, there is probably a stronger case to be made for evolution than 1+1 = 2.

Right. I mean, you can go there. You can fundamentally question the basis of everything. That's grand.


But, you are right, if you want to reject all science as fundamentally flawed, because it is a system created by humans or whatever, go for it man. I dont think you can pick and choose though. I think you have to reject all of it.

Once you accept the base, the system is logically coherant from there on in.
But, to start you have to say, 1+1 != 2, or in fact do not accept far more simple things that that, that 1 is a quantity, then you can go there.

I just work from the stand point that 1 represents a quantity, and 1+1 does = 2. And move forward from there.

No, no. You're getting me all wrong. I'm all in favour of science. I think science has produced some excellent ideas. But we should never take these ideas as truth. We need to constantly re-evaluate them based on the evidence.

 

[Bladez]

By 'we', do you mean you and me?

I don't claim to have made any contributions to science. By 'we' I mean mankind.

 

[MDR]

I think that God had realised how much trouble this 'science' would create, he would never have invented it.

 

[snakybus]

Bladez is absolutely right. It's philosopher Thomas Kuhn's basic theory that the only reason we know the sun will rise tomorrow is because it's done it a whole bunch of times already.

 

[MDR]

I don't claim to have made any contributions to science.

Fair enough. I discovered magnesium.

 

[ITalkShite]

Fair enough. I discovered magnesium.

Why isn't it called Mumblindeafrosium, then?

 

[avernus]

I don't claim to have made any contributions to science. By 'we' I mean mankind.

what about womankind?

 

[flashback]

No, no. You're getting me all wrong. I'm all in favour of science. I think science has produced some excellent ideas. But we should never take these ideas as truth. We need to constantly re-evaluate them based on the evidence.

Ok. I see. You are saying we must look at all things critically, and not accept things simply because you are told them to be true, you must demand evidence.

I see.
I completely agree with you.

 

[MDR]

Why isn't it called Mumblindeafrosium, then?

Because the people who run the periodic table are a bunch of assholes - long story.

 

[snakybus]

Because the people who run the periodic table are a bunch of assholes - long story.

Especially that Magnes fella

 

[MDR]

Especially that Magnes fella

Basically, unless you discover an inert gas they don't want to know you. It's easier to get a gig in whelan's.

 

[snakybus]

Basically, unless you discover an inert gas they don't want to know you. It's easier to get a gig in whelan's.

I know, I know. All the gasses I've discovered are ert.

 

[MDR]

I don't know much about ert but I know what i like.

Imagine having dinner with Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Screamin Jay Hawkins and the members of Hawkwind.

 

[avernus]

I don't know much about ert but I know what i like.

Imagine having dinner with Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Screamin Jay Hawkins and the members of Hawkwind.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

so... if you dont believe that 1+1 = 2, and I have seen the proof for this, its an extremely complicated proof, if you reject all of science, and reject that you or I or anything exists then you can also say that you do not believe in evolutionary science.
Although, there is probably a stronger case to be made for evolution than 1+1 = 2.

Right. I mean, you can go there. You can fundamentally question the basis of everything. That's grand.


But, you are right, if you want to reject all science as fundamentally flawed, because it is a system created by humans or whatever, go for it man. I dont think you can pick and choose though. I think you have to reject all of it.

Once you accept the base, the system is logically coherant from there on in.
But, to start you have to say, 1+1 != 2, or in fact do not accept far more simple things that that, that 1 is a quantity, then you can go there.

I just work from the stand point that 1 represents a quantity, and 1+1 does = 2. And move forward from there.

Maths and science arent the same.

You are completely missing the point of how science works.

Blades is 100% right and you are 100% - and it has nothing to do with philosophy.

Ro is right - there is no certainty. The theory we have now explains the facts we have observed till now. Newtonian gravitation agreed with the fact observable untill (actually the anniversary of the first expirimental confirmation of relativity was yesterday) new phenomona were observed which needed to be explained.

There is nothing which is proved there is simply a cycle of
Observation
Formulate Theory
Expiriment

Nothing is ever set in stone in science .

You seem to think that this is the same as saying every theory is equally valid. That is not the case. A theory that is not suported by expiriment/observation is outright wrong and one which has no predictive value is just not very useful (whether right or wrong)

This lack of dogmsa is exactly what makes science powerful. The fact that everything is up for grabs and the only yardstick is expiriment is what allows progress.

 

[avernus]

Maths and science arent the same.

You are completely missing the point of how science works.

Blades is 100% right and you are 100% - and it has nothing to do with philosophy.

Ro is right - there is no certainty. The theory we have now explains the facts we have observed till now. Newtonian gravitation agreed with the fact observable untill (actually the anniversary of the first expirimental confirmation of relativity was yesterday) new phenomona were observed which needed to be explained.

There is nothing which is proved there is simply a cycle of
Observation
Formulate Theory
Expiriment

Nothing is ever set in stone in science .

You seem to think that this is the same as saying every theory is equally valid. That is not the case. A theory that is not suported by expiriment/observation is outright wrong and one which has no predictive value is just not very useful (whether right or wrong)

This lack of dogmsa is exactly what makes science powerful. The fact that everything is up for grabs and the only yardstick is expiriment is what allows progress.

I'm sorry, I just have to call you on this... have to... it's experiment. Sorry.

 

[egg_]

You are completely missing the point of how science works.

Ah now dude, I expect flashback has a fairly good grasp of the philosophy of science. He might not be saying exactly what you think he should be saying, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know how science works. You shouldn't mistake a communication gap for ignorance

 

[egg_]

Pretty top class comedic exchange there between MDR and Snaky, btw, well done bize