Total Posts:128|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science denialism....

Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I am usually not very active in this forum -for a very good reason.
Most of the threads here do not deal with something actually worth discussing. Evolution denial, creationism, flat earth, "quantum mechanics demonstrates that.....", you name it.

I am just some random chemistry student. I don't understand the mathematical intricacies of physics and don't have the memorization skills required for biology. But I have some background in both.
When I see someone deriving, say, the quantum harmonic oscillator equation via the power series method, I understand a lot of the steps involved, but I don't believe I would ever be able to do that on my own.
I appreciate the skill involved and I appreciate the effort it must have been for whoever originally came up with that.
However, it is stuff like this one needs to understand before one can understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics in the slightest.

What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this and proceed to claim there to be no evidence for evolution or a spherical earth or that quantum physics demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt" we can influence reality with our mind.

To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.
It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here, as it represents a complete lack of appreciation for the work and skill that were required to formulate these theories and consequently a complete lack of respect for science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:10:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
What it boils down to is that 1) people want to make sense of the world, and 2) people tend to be intellectually lazy.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 11:12:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this
I strongly concur, Fkkize. I've said here before that a high-school science education, a subscription to the Discovery Channel, and a tinfoil hat blogsite are nothing like enough professional expertise to competently critique scientific methods.

It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here
Yes, and the laziness and intellectual dishonesty in such sloppy research are insults to the entire DDO membership in general, whatever their interest in science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.
A worthy rant nonetheless. I have nothing substantive to add, but as a former science researcher myself, I thank you for the comment. :)
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 12:09:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Yes, scientists have taken many short cuts to fame and fortune. That's what I am here for. To cull out the frauds and the misfits that didn't do their home work and found an easy way to get into the limelight.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 1:14:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 12:09:12 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
Yes, scientists have taken many short cuts to fame and fortune. That's what I am here for. To cull out the frauds and the misfits that didn't do their home work and found an easy way to get into the limelight.

And you sure do a great job at that, posting in an online forum how the existence of viruses are a fraud and whatnot.
I am sure a lot of charlatans lost their reputation because of your work.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 1:44:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:14:09 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/20/2016 12:09:12 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
Yes, scientists have taken many short cuts to fame and fortune. That's what I am here for. To cull out the frauds and the misfits that didn't do their home work and found an easy way to get into the limelight.

And you sure do a great job at that, posting in an online forum how the existence of viruses are a fraud and whatnot.
I am sure a lot of charlatans lost their reputation because of your work.

Yep!, Your right! Those two charlatans; Pasteur and Jenner, really have taken a hiding since I've been on this website! lol
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 8:14:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I am usually not very active in this forum -for a very good reason.
Most of the threads here do not deal with something actually worth discussing. Evolution denial, creationism, flat earth, "quantum mechanics demonstrates that.....", you name it.

I am just some random chemistry student. I don't understand the mathematical intricacies of physics and don't have the memorization skills required for biology. But I have some background in both.
When I see someone deriving, say, the quantum harmonic oscillator equation via the power series method, I understand a lot of the steps involved, but I don't believe I would ever be able to do that on my own.
I appreciate the skill involved and I appreciate the effort it must have been for whoever originally came up with that.
However, it is stuff like this one needs to understand before one can understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics in the slightest.

What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this and proceed to claim there to be no evidence for evolution or a spherical earth or that quantum physics demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt" we can influence reality with our mind.


There are some people who fit that description but certification is not necessary in order to meaningfully discuss science. I'm not someone who has worked professionally as "a scientist" but could have been had I wanted to. Nevertheless there are areas that I have considerable knowledge of and understanding because I had and still have a passion for the intellect and the physical sciences and such a passion is a pre-requisite for any serious student.

To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.

But what exactly are you saying here? That unless you hold some certificate you are unworthy and unable to contest claims made by those who do hold some certificate?

I agree that hasty copy/paste from this or that website and lazily posted URLs to crude little videos are far from what we'd expect in a serious open minded discourse, but don't assume that only those with certain qualifications are able to discern truth.

It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here, as it represents a complete lack of appreciation for the work and skill that were required to formulate these theories and consequently a complete lack of respect for science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.

So what of professional scientists and professors who challenge prevailing ideas? are you saying that disagreeing with widely held beliefs is itself invalid?

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 8:15:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 11:12:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this
I strongly concur, Fkkize. I've said here before that a high-school science education, a subscription to the Discovery Channel, and a tinfoil hat blogsite are nothing like enough professional expertise to competently critique scientific methods.

It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here
Yes, and the laziness and intellectual dishonesty in such sloppy research are insults to the entire DDO membership in general, whatever their interest in science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.
A worthy rant nonetheless. I have nothing substantive to add, but as a former science researcher myself, I thank you for the comment. :)

What may I ask did you research?

Harry.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 8:28:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 8:15:09 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/20/2016 11:12:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this
I strongly concur, Fkkize. I've said here before that a high-school science education, a subscription to the Discovery Channel, and a tinfoil hat blogsite are nothing like enough professional expertise to competently critique scientific methods.

It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here
Yes, and the laziness and intellectual dishonesty in such sloppy research are insults to the entire DDO membership in general, whatever their interest in science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.
A worthy rant nonetheless. I have nothing substantive to add, but as a former science researcher myself, I thank you for the comment. :)

What may I ask did you research?

I worked on numerous projects, Harry, but they all fell under the broad heading of informatics: the collection, organisation, use and presentation of information to explore, validate and verify conjectures in science and engineering disciplines.

Hence my interest in epistemology, ontology, validation and verification methodologies, and (indirectly) the history of science, truth and knowledge -- and my frequent irritation at ignorant members misrepresenting these matters based on lazy research, self-important conceit, and excessive faith in cynical, propagandist blogsites.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 8:30:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 8:28:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/20/2016 8:15:09 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/20/2016 11:12:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this
I strongly concur, Fkkize. I've said here before that a high-school science education, a subscription to the Discovery Channel, and a tinfoil hat blogsite are nothing like enough professional expertise to competently critique scientific methods.

It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here
Yes, and the laziness and intellectual dishonesty in such sloppy research are insults to the entire DDO membership in general, whatever their interest in science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.
A worthy rant nonetheless. I have nothing substantive to add, but as a former science researcher myself, I thank you for the comment. :)

What may I ask did you research?

I worked on numerous projects, Harry, but they all fell under the broad heading of informatics: the collection, organisation, use and presentation of information to explore, validate and verify conjectures in science and engineering disciplines.

Hence my interest in epistemology, ontology, validation and verification methodologies, and (indirectly) the history of science, truth and knowledge -- and my frequent irritation at ignorant members misrepresenting these matters based on lazy research, self-important conceit, and excessive faith in cynical, propagandist blogsites.

You're not the only one who feels like that about Dannele.

Harry.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 8:39:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 8:30:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/20/2016 8:28:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/20/2016 8:15:09 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/20/2016 11:12:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this
I strongly concur, Fkkize. I've said here before that a high-school science education, a subscription to the Discovery Channel, and a tinfoil hat blogsite are nothing like enough professional expertise to competently critique scientific methods.

It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here
Yes, and the laziness and intellectual dishonesty in such sloppy research are insults to the entire DDO membership in general, whatever their interest in science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.
A worthy rant nonetheless. I have nothing substantive to add, but as a former science researcher myself, I thank you for the comment. :)

What may I ask did you research?

I worked on numerous projects, Harry, but they all fell under the broad heading of informatics: the collection, organisation, use and presentation of information to explore, validate and verify conjectures in science and engineering disciplines.

Hence my interest in epistemology, ontology, validation and verification methodologies, and (indirectly) the history of science, truth and knowledge -- and my frequent irritation at ignorant members misrepresenting these matters based on lazy research, self-important conceit, and excessive faith in cynical, propagandist blogsites.

You're not the only one who feels like that about Dannele.

Congratulations Harry, for insulting two members with the one line of unfunny and unwitty dishonesty.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 8:40:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.

But what exactly are you saying here? That unless you hold some certificate you are unworthy and unable to contest claims made by those who do hold some certificate?

What I am saying is that it is foolish to think one could acquire the knowledge necessary to understand and debunk scientific theories that stand undefeated for more than a hundred years from sources available to the ordinary man.
One or two semesters in you start to deal with things that simply are not covered in public sources anymore. Yet this stuff is vital to understand what you are talking about.
It follows then that you have to either be an academic of some sorts or very rich to acquire the resources necessary, not that a title makes you right.

I agree that hasty copy/paste from this or that website and lazily posted URLs to crude little videos are far from what we'd expect in a serious open minded discourse, but don't assume that only those with certain qualifications are able to discern truth.

Again, I have not said it is the title itself that makes someone's opinion superior to that of others.
Yet, the presumption against anyone who has never practiced science, but makes scientific claims contrary to scientific consensus is more than warranted.

So what of professional scientists and professors who challenge prevailing ideas? are you saying that disagreeing with widely held beliefs is itself invalid?

I have never said any challenge would be invalid. I am saying that if you challenge science and be it as a layman you better have some rock solid evidence and I would be a lot more willing to believe what others here say about gravity or relativity if they were to present any actual calculations. Yet nobody ever does that.
Demonstrating that one understands the mathematics behind whatever theory in question lends a lot more support than citing any number of non-scholarly articles. Yet nobody ever does that.

To think one understands anything about physics without a proper mathematical education is one flavor of the arrogance that I am ranting about.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 11:37:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 8:40:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:

What I am saying is that it is foolish to think one could acquire the knowledge necessary to understand and debunk scientific theories that stand undefeated for more than a hundred years from sources available to the ordinary man.
One or two semesters in you start to deal with things that simply are not covered in public sources anymore. Yet this stuff is vital to understand what you are talking about.
It follows then that you have to either be an academic of some sorts or very rich to acquire the resources necessary, not that a title makes you right.


I heartily agree with your overall point, but must quibble somewhat with what you say here. It may have been true 15 or 20 years ago. But today nearly every scientific journal and most conference proceedings are available online. Plus, you can readily find textbooks on nearly any subject, up through the graduate level. So it is not that the average person lacks access to sources of information only available to academics.

I do agree that the average person who wanted to self-educate on, say, physics, to the point of being able to fully grasp the mathematics behind current cosmological models, would have a difficult time doing so without someone to guide their instruction. But an intelligent, industrious person could potentially do so using only public sources. And, of course, physics is probably the most mathematically intense example.

As I said, I do agree with your main point, though. Most people who attack established scientific theories don't fully understand them.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 11:55:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 11:37:09 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/20/2016 8:40:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:

What I am saying is that it is foolish to think one could acquire the knowledge necessary to understand and debunk scientific theories that stand undefeated for more than a hundred years from sources available to the ordinary man.
One or two semesters in you start to deal with things that simply are not covered in public sources anymore. Yet this stuff is vital to understand what you are talking about.
It follows then that you have to either be an academic of some sorts or very rich to acquire the resources necessary, not that a title makes you right.


I heartily agree with your overall point, but must quibble somewhat with what you say here. It may have been true 15 or 20 years ago. But today nearly every scientific journal and most conference proceedings are available online.

Available online, yes. For free, definitely not.
Journals are as expensive as never before. It has come to a point where even universities have to cut subscriptions because they can't afford them anymore.

Plus, you can readily find textbooks on nearly any subject, up through the graduate level.

Of course, but it's not like you could grab some advanced material science textbook and learn it right away. You need the knowledge required for the specific textbook as well.
Further, these books are quite expensive and most books are not accessible to laymen.
That is to say, you need to spend a lot of money on a lot of textbooks to acquire a decent amount of knowledge.

So it is not that the average person lacks access to sources of information only available to academics.

The average person does not have the money for dozens of books which can cost up to 80 Euro each and the average person has a daytime job or is studying something else, that is to say, lacks the time someone primarily studying a natural science has available for that topic.

As I said, I do agree with your main point, though. Most people who attack established scientific theories don't fully understand them.

Thanks for the support.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 12:33:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 11:55:43 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/20/2016 11:37:09 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/20/2016 8:40:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:

What I am saying is that it is foolish to think one could acquire the knowledge necessary to understand and debunk scientific theories that stand undefeated for more than a hundred years from sources available to the ordinary man.
One or two semesters in you start to deal with things that simply are not covered in public sources anymore. Yet this stuff is vital to understand what you are talking about.
It follows then that you have to either be an academic of some sorts or very rich to acquire the resources necessary, not that a title makes you right.


I heartily agree with your overall point, but must quibble somewhat with what you say here. It may have been true 15 or 20 years ago. But today nearly every scientific journal and most conference proceedings are available online.

Available online, yes. For free, definitely not.
Journals are as expensive as never before. It has come to a point where even universities have to cut subscriptions because they can't afford them anymore.

Plus, you can readily find textbooks on nearly any subject, up through the graduate level.

Of course, but it's not like you could grab some advanced material science textbook and learn it right away. You need the knowledge required for the specific textbook as well.
Further, these books are quite expensive and most books are not accessible to laymen.
That is to say, you need to spend a lot of money on a lot of textbooks to acquire a decent amount of knowledge.


Most textbooks can be found for free if you know where to look. I see enterprising students find them all the time. Not that I'm condoning that sort of thing. There are ways around the paywalls of online publishers, too. For one thing, you can often find a particular publication on the webpage of one of the authors, or email the author for a copy.

So it is not that the average person lacks access to sources of information only available to academics.

The average person does not have the money for dozens of books which can cost up to 80 Euro each and the average person has a daytime job or is studying something else, that is to say, lacks the time someone primarily studying a natural science has available for that topic.


True, the average person cannot or will not spare the thousands of hours it takes to gain expertise in a field. My point was only that, if they had the time and motivation, they could, using publicly available sources.

As I said, I do agree with your main point, though. Most people who attack established scientific theories don't fully understand them.

Thanks for the support.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 3:48:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I am usually not very active in this forum -for a very good reason.
Most of the threads here do not deal with something actually worth discussing. Evolution denial, creationism, flat earth, "quantum mechanics demonstrates that.....", you name it.

I am just some random chemistry student. I don't understand the mathematical intricacies of physics and don't have the memorization skills required for biology. But I have some background in both.
When I see someone deriving, say, the quantum harmonic oscillator equation via the power series method, I understand a lot of the steps involved, but I don't believe I would ever be able to do that on my own.
I appreciate the skill involved and I appreciate the effort it must have been for whoever originally came up with that.
However, it is stuff like this one needs to understand before one can understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics in the slightest.

What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this and proceed to claim there to be no evidence for evolution or a spherical earth or that quantum physics demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt" we can influence reality with our mind.

To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.
It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here, as it represents a complete lack of appreciation for the work and skill that were required to formulate these theories and consequently a complete lack of respect for science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.

I am just as disgusted by science denialism as you are. However, as a layman, I am just as irritated by the difficulty of finding the information that lead to the scientific conclusions. This information should be more accessible (ie, free). If it were, I feel YouTube and blogs as a source of information wouldn't be as common, or at least, not as accepted.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 10:14:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 3:48:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I am usually not very active in this forum -for a very good reason.
Most of the threads here do not deal with something actually worth discussing. Evolution denial, creationism, flat earth, "quantum mechanics demonstrates that.....", you name it.

I am just some random chemistry student. I don't understand the mathematical intricacies of physics and don't have the memorization skills required for biology. But I have some background in both.
When I see someone deriving, say, the quantum harmonic oscillator equation via the power series method, I understand a lot of the steps involved, but I don't believe I would ever be able to do that on my own.
I appreciate the skill involved and I appreciate the effort it must have been for whoever originally came up with that.
However, it is stuff like this one needs to understand before one can understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics in the slightest.

What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this and proceed to claim there to be no evidence for evolution or a spherical earth or that quantum physics demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt" we can influence reality with our mind.

To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.
It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here, as it represents a complete lack of appreciation for the work and skill that were required to formulate these theories and consequently a complete lack of respect for science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.

I am just as disgusted by science denialism as you are. However, as a layman, I am just as irritated by the difficulty of finding the information that lead to the scientific conclusions. This information should be more accessible (ie, free). If it were, I feel YouTube and blogs as a source of information wouldn't be as common, or at least, not as accepted.

I agree. However, I am not sure how we could make that work.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 10:28:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 3:48:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I am usually not very active in this forum -for a very good reason.
Most of the threads here do not deal with something actually worth discussing. Evolution denial, creationism, flat earth, "quantum mechanics demonstrates that.....", you name it.

I am just some random chemistry student. I don't understand the mathematical intricacies of physics and don't have the memorization skills required for biology. But I have some background in both.
When I see someone deriving, say, the quantum harmonic oscillator equation via the power series method, I understand a lot of the steps involved, but I don't believe I would ever be able to do that on my own.
I appreciate the skill involved and I appreciate the effort it must have been for whoever originally came up with that.
However, it is stuff like this one needs to understand before one can understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics in the slightest.

What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this and proceed to claim there to be no evidence for evolution or a spherical earth or that quantum physics demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt" we can influence reality with our mind.

To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.
It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here, as it represents a complete lack of appreciation for the work and skill that were required to formulate these theories and consequently a complete lack of respect for science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.

I am just as disgusted by science denialism as you are. However, as a layman, I am just as irritated by the difficulty of finding the information that lead to the scientific conclusions. This information should be more accessible (ie, free). If it were, I feel YouTube and blogs as a source of information wouldn't be as common, or at least, not as accepted.

Could you give an example of a scientific conclusion for which you can't find information? And note that information being highly technical is not the same as it being unobtainable.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 10:37:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 10:28:16 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/21/2016 3:48:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I am usually not very active in this forum -for a very good reason.
Most of the threads here do not deal with something actually worth discussing. Evolution denial, creationism, flat earth, "quantum mechanics demonstrates that.....", you name it.

I am just some random chemistry student. I don't understand the mathematical intricacies of physics and don't have the memorization skills required for biology. But I have some background in both.
When I see someone deriving, say, the quantum harmonic oscillator equation via the power series method, I understand a lot of the steps involved, but I don't believe I would ever be able to do that on my own.
I appreciate the skill involved and I appreciate the effort it must have been for whoever originally came up with that.
However, it is stuff like this one needs to understand before one can understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics in the slightest.

What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this and proceed to claim there to be no evidence for evolution or a spherical earth or that quantum physics demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt" we can influence reality with our mind.

To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.
It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here, as it represents a complete lack of appreciation for the work and skill that were required to formulate these theories and consequently a complete lack of respect for science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.

I am just as disgusted by science denialism as you are. However, as a layman, I am just as irritated by the difficulty of finding the information that lead to the scientific conclusions. This information should be more accessible (ie, free). If it were, I feel YouTube and blogs as a source of information wouldn't be as common, or at least, not as accepted.

Could you give an example of a scientific conclusion for which you can't find information? And note that information being highly technical is not the same as it being unobtainable.

I didn't say scientific information was unobtainable, but difficult to obtain. As a layman, I cant go to the scientific journals and investigate the specifics. I'm on my phone now, but I will try to link an example when I get back home.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 10:45:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 10:28:16 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/21/2016 3:48:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I am usually not very active in this forum -for a very good reason.
Most of the threads here do not deal with something actually worth discussing. Evolution denial, creationism, flat earth, "quantum mechanics demonstrates that.....", you name it.

I am just some random chemistry student. I don't understand the mathematical intricacies of physics and don't have the memorization skills required for biology. But I have some background in both.
When I see someone deriving, say, the quantum harmonic oscillator equation via the power series method, I understand a lot of the steps involved, but I don't believe I would ever be able to do that on my own.
I appreciate the skill involved and I appreciate the effort it must have been for whoever originally came up with that.
However, it is stuff like this one needs to understand before one can understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics in the slightest.

What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this and proceed to claim there to be no evidence for evolution or a spherical earth or that quantum physics demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt" we can influence reality with our mind.

To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.
It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here, as it represents a complete lack of appreciation for the work and skill that were required to formulate these theories and consequently a complete lack of respect for science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.

I am just as disgusted by science denialism as you are. However, as a layman, I am just as irritated by the difficulty of finding the information that lead to the scientific conclusions. This information should be more accessible (ie, free). If it were, I feel YouTube and blogs as a source of information wouldn't be as common, or at least, not as accepted.

Could you give an example of a scientific conclusion for which you can't find information? And note that information being highly technical is not the same as it being unobtainable.

In chemistry for example you have some organic reactions you can read up on Wikipedia and another bunch you can only find in quite expensive papers.
Again, I am not saying these are categorically unobtainable for non-academics. Sure, anyone could find and buy them, but realistically nobody who does not make a living from organic chemistry would invest the time and money in such papers.
As such, stuff like this is effectively unavailable to most people.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 1:10:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Science denialism....

So when you question science, that's denialism, but when you question religion, that's skepticism?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 3:30:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 10:14:16 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/21/2016 3:48:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I am usually not very active in this forum -for a very good reason.
Most of the threads here do not deal with something actually worth discussing. Evolution denial, creationism, flat earth, "quantum mechanics demonstrates that.....", you name it.

I am just some random chemistry student. I don't understand the mathematical intricacies of physics and don't have the memorization skills required for biology. But I have some background in both.
When I see someone deriving, say, the quantum harmonic oscillator equation via the power series method, I understand a lot of the steps involved, but I don't believe I would ever be able to do that on my own.
I appreciate the skill involved and I appreciate the effort it must have been for whoever originally came up with that.
However, it is stuff like this one needs to understand before one can understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics in the slightest.

What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this and proceed to claim there to be no evidence for evolution or a spherical earth or that quantum physics demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt" we can influence reality with our mind.

To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.
It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here, as it represents a complete lack of appreciation for the work and skill that were required to formulate these theories and consequently a complete lack of respect for science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.

I am just as disgusted by science denialism as you are. However, as a layman, I am just as irritated by the difficulty of finding the information that lead to the scientific conclusions. This information should be more accessible (ie, free). If it were, I feel YouTube and blogs as a source of information wouldn't be as common, or at least, not as accepted.

I agree. However, I am not sure how we could make that work.

....a step in the right direction?

http://www.nytimes.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 3:48:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I love that name scepticalone. Is it sceptic alone? Or sceptical one? We don't know. I'm not sure I want to know - but I like the former better, because it conjures a romantic image of the sceptic, alone, in stark contradiction to its meaning - in that the sceptic has no use for romanticism. I also love the comments of Fizke above:

What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this and proceed to claim there to be no evidence for evolution or a spherical earth or that quantum physics demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt" we can influence reality with our mind.

To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.
It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here, as it represents a complete lack of appreciation for the work and skill that were required to formulate these theories and consequently a complete lack of respect for science.

Bravo Fizke. You tell 'em. Just don't expect them to listen. For better or worse, everyone has to come to terms with reality - whatever their intellectual level. In fact, the world is nothing like a box of chocolates, but...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 9:20:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 3:30:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/21/2016 10:14:16 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/21/2016 3:48:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I am usually not very active in this forum -for a very good reason.
Most of the threads here do not deal with something actually worth discussing. Evolution denial, creationism, flat earth, "quantum mechanics demonstrates that.....", you name it.

I am just some random chemistry student. I don't understand the mathematical intricacies of physics and don't have the memorization skills required for biology. But I have some background in both.
When I see someone deriving, say, the quantum harmonic oscillator equation via the power series method, I understand a lot of the steps involved, but I don't believe I would ever be able to do that on my own.
I appreciate the skill involved and I appreciate the effort it must have been for whoever originally came up with that.
However, it is stuff like this one needs to understand before one can understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics in the slightest.

What amazes me in the most disgusting of ways is how people with literally no formal background in science who get their information from YouTube and blogposts have the audacity to think they understand jack about any of this and proceed to claim there to be no evidence for evolution or a spherical earth or that quantum physics demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt" we can influence reality with our mind.

To think you could acquire the knowledge necessary to debunk scientific theories that have been established for more than a hundred years from sources like that is arrogance so mind boggling, I find it hard to put in words.
It is insulting to anyone seriously invested in science and research to propose these tin foil hatteries based on "evidence" as lousy as it is presented here, as it represents a complete lack of appreciation for the work and skill that were required to formulate these theories and consequently a complete lack of respect for science.

This thread does not serve, nor is it likely to achieve, any purpose. It is just a rant of mine.

I am just as disgusted by science denialism as you are. However, as a layman, I am just as irritated by the difficulty of finding the information that lead to the scientific conclusions. This information should be more accessible (ie, free). If it were, I feel YouTube and blogs as a source of information wouldn't be as common, or at least, not as accepted.

I agree. However, I am not sure how we could make that work.

....a step in the right direction?

http://www.nytimes.com...

Indeed.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 9:27:12 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 1:10:05 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Science denialism....

So when you question science, that's denialism, but when you question religion, that's skepticism?

Religion does not rely on complicated mathematical models that have been rigorously tested for ages.
There are innumerous atheistic philosophers of religion who also studied theology and produce very reasonable arguments not exactly against religion, but against theism for example.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 12:02:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 9:27:12 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/22/2016 1:10:05 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Science denialism....

So when you question science, that's denialism, but when you question religion, that's skepticism?

Religion does not rely on complicated mathematical models that have been rigorously tested for ages.
There are innumerous atheistic philosophers of religion who also studied theology and produce very reasonable arguments not exactly against religion, but against theism for example.

Arguably, religion is far more tested than science - and contains within it many very powerful emotional and psychological constructs, moral theses, sociological and political theories developed over many thousands of years - and for a long time before being written down in the forms we know them today.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 3:28:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 9:27:12 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/22/2016 1:10:05 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Science denialism....

So when you question science, that's denialism, but when you question religion, that's skepticism?

Religion does not rely on complicated mathematical models that have been rigorously tested for ages.
There are innumerous atheistic philosophers of religion who also studied theology and produce very reasonable arguments not exactly against religion, but against theism for example.

There are also people who have studied various aspects of mainstream science who produce very reasonable arguments against them.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 3:32:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 3:28:50 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/22/2016 9:27:12 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/22/2016 1:10:05 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Science denialism....

So when you question science, that's denialism, but when you question religion, that's skepticism?

Religion does not rely on complicated mathematical models that have been rigorously tested for ages.
There are innumerous atheistic philosophers of religion who also studied theology and produce very reasonable arguments not exactly against religion, but against theism for example.

There are also people who have studied various aspects of mainstream science who produce very reasonable arguments against them.

And I have explained in the OP why this is not the case.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 3:44:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 3:32:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:28:50 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/22/2016 9:27:12 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/22/2016 1:10:05 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Science denialism....

So when you question science, that's denialism, but when you question religion, that's skepticism?

Religion does not rely on complicated mathematical models that have been rigorously tested for ages.
There are innumerous atheistic philosophers of religion who also studied theology and produce very reasonable arguments not exactly against religion, but against theism for example.

There are also people who have studied various aspects of mainstream science who produce very reasonable arguments against them.

And I have explained in the OP why this is not the case.

You explained in the OP why the arguments against science from lay people are not reasonable, but did not really address ex-scientists who produce arguments against mainstream science for their area of study.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 3:59:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 3:44:49 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:32:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:28:50 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/22/2016 9:27:12 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/22/2016 1:10:05 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/19/2016 8:55:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Science denialism....

So when you question science, that's denialism, but when you question religion, that's skepticism?

Religion does not rely on complicated mathematical models that have been rigorously tested for ages.
There are innumerous atheistic philosophers of religion who also studied theology and produce very reasonable arguments not exactly against religion, but against theism for example.

There are also people who have studied various aspects of mainstream science who produce very reasonable arguments against them.

And I have explained in the OP why this is not the case.

You explained in the OP why the arguments against science from lay people are not reasonable, but did not really address ex-scientists who produce arguments against mainstream science for their area of study.

That is not what you have said in your previous responses, you never talked about ex-scientists. Can you name any examples?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic