Michele Joined The Race, and Debated?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009
Michele Joined The Race, and Debated?
141
Tue, 06-14-2011 - 2:09pm

 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Fri, 06-24-2011 - 6:34pm

Let me start by agreeing with you that it is impossible to prove a negative (i.e., it is impossible to prove that there is not a single red swan in existence, since just because we haven't seen one doesn't mean one doesn't exist - we may have simply not found it).





iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sat, 06-25-2011 - 4:04pm
I think the thing that nonscientists miss is that scientific theories are "best fit" explanations of physical phenomena, using data and tools like logic and math. Scientific knowledge is in a continual state of ...er...evolution because it ISN'T a matter of faith. Our understanding of the mechanics of the universe changes as we get more data. People thought Quantum Mechanics and the notion that matter and energy are related by E=mc**2 were crazy when they were first posited. They turned out to be absolutely on the mark.

'Then there's another "scientist" who says that space isn't smooth and flat, as "scientists" have believed for years'

What scientists have believed that space is smooth and flat for years? The Greeks?

It's people who think of science in magical terms who require it to be static. Science is not "truth", nor is it meant to be.

My ds20 mans a telescope at star parties. He finds that it's always the most ignorant who are set in their opinions...for example, last night, they were challenging the claim that a certain "globular cluster" contains 3 million stars. Have they been counted? he was asked. He explained how spectral and mathematical methods are used to determine the size and distance and type and number of stars. They referred him to Scripture, because the universe can't possibly be that big...what we can see in the night sky is obviously some scurvy trick being played by a malign supernatural being. That's faith...but far beyond the scope of science, which cannot even disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy. It's not supposed to be able to.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sat, 06-25-2011 - 4:09pm
The main reason that ID is totally bogus is that the conclusion that the universe must have a designer is also implicitly one of its premises...totally circular. It busts scientific method...you can prove anything with that kind of "logic".
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2011
Mon, 06-27-2011 - 2:27pm

*** Let me start by agreeing with you that it is impossible to prove a negative (i.e., it is impossible to prove that there is not a single red swan in existence, since just because we haven't seen one doesn't mean one doesn't exist - we may have simply not found it).

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Mon, 06-27-2011 - 2:40pm

<>

LOL!





iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2011
Mon, 06-27-2011 - 2:53pm

*** I think the thing that nonscientists miss is that scientific theories are "best fit" explanations of physical phenomena, using data and tools like logic and math.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2011
Mon, 06-27-2011 - 2:56pm

*** Since I know you like the smell of napalm in the morning, I'll agree with you again (shocking, I know).

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Mon, 06-27-2011 - 5:45pm

In this comic, I would place ID somewhere to the left of sociology.





iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2011
Mon, 06-27-2011 - 7:02pm

***

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Mon, 06-27-2011 - 7:11pm

<>

Huh? What are you talking about?





Pages