.
.
.
Last edited:
....
- Thread starter humble Hermit
- Start date
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
Everyone plays a game friend. Scientists have to get funding and they may lie to do so. Also, the equipment scientists use typically arent funded personally. They come from universities and corporations that have their own agendas and uses for discoveries. Most discoveries are not just for the thrill of discovering something. There is a purpose. That said, you're right. They have to be trust as much as we trust a politician, not much.
.
Last edited:
Blah Blah Blah...I used to think like that, but these theories are not really easy to do. 99% of people don't have access to the equipment they use. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors.I'm not a religious nut, I actually believe there's a place where religion and science can coexist.
Hell
It's so demonic(jk)
What are you doing in your life that you need to conduct expensive experiments? Are you an amateur scientist? Do you read scientific journals? Are you part of that community at all? How do you know Scientist are elitist when one of claims is that they must have faith when that is not the case at all.
Propaganda
Superstar
Sounds like faith to me
sounds like you don't know what faith is.
faith would be just assuming the predictions stemming from their theories are correct and not conducting the experiments at all.
VerbalIntercourse
Banned
Blah Blah Blah...I used to think like that, but these theories are not really easy to do
one tenth of 1% of the world's population even has the smarts to understand the results of an experiment at that level. Access to the equipment is a moot point.
And religion and science can not coexist.
I differentiate between "real science" and what we call science. "Our science" is clearly full of holes and unanswered questions. So I'm debating both, scientists and people who have blind faith in them. Blind faith in the sense that few of their followers (for example us on this site) actually repeat the experiments to prove it to ourselves. We just accept whatever the scientist says. Then the scientist proves himself wrong, making fools of us in the process, and we just go with his newest theory.
Science disproves itself all the time. It actually makes more logical sense to be skeptical of anything science deems true on the account there's a good chance it will be disproved by science itself in the future. It's like why buy the iPhone 5 when the iPhone 6 will be better, and so on.
You have to have faith in order to believe in anything, science included.
Dirty_Jerz
Ethiop
you need faith to believe in air? in gravity? That rain will happen? And now your using iphones as examples of science when that is clearly a product or science not science itself.
you need faith to believe in air? in gravity? That rain will happen? And now your using iphones as examples of science when that is clearly a product or science not science itself.
What is air made of? Do you know or do you have faith in what someone tells you it's made of?
Gravity also existed before man discovered it and named it gravity.
The iPhone analogy clearly went over your head.
What is air made of? Do you know or do you have faith in what someone tells you it's made of?
Gravity also existed before man discovered it and named it gravity.
The iPhone analogy clearly went over your head.
air is made out oxygen and nitrogen i know this because I can prove it with a simple experiment. (breaths in and out, breaths in water then drown).
Gravity needed faith first in order for it to work according to you
and your iphone analogy made no fukking sense.
LOL@ your faith argument.
In their quest to unravel the universe they come upon an unknown and try to make it known.
To solve the problem, they form a theory
Then everyone pokes holes in the theory to disprove it.
If they can't, they use the new theory as a benchmark and continue forward. Some scientists trudge ahead to new areas, others continue to dissect the commonly believed theory looking for a better one.
In the case of the collider, the Bogs theory presented an answer that was undefinable and invisible to current technology. The need to either prove or disprove had zero to do with faith in finding it and everything to do with seeing if it exists in the first place.
If it doesn't exist, they will go back to the drawing board.
VerbalIntercourse
Banned
You can't be guided by facts in area of your life and blind faith in the other.
There are plenty of moral theories and theories of justice and ethics that don't religion. There is no justification for such blind faith at all.
you have to realize that science goes through a process that basically consists of a bunch of haters that want to prove it wrong. knowing this, any scientist tries to disprove their own theory first to avoid embarassment
science goes to great lengths to control variables, calculate error margins, and do everything possible to make sure they're not 'wrong'. sure some scientists see dollar $ign$, and try to cheat, but then that gang of haters is waiting to point out their errors
it's a very rigorous process
science goes to great lengths to control variables, calculate error margins, and do everything possible to make sure they're not 'wrong'. sure some scientists see dollar $ign$, and try to cheat, but then that gang of haters is waiting to point out their errors
it's a very rigorous process
Similar threads
