Why Science is Ridiculous

[John Kepler]

Ergo, "science" will never ever have a "theory of everything", since
without the "intangibles", it's simply not a theory of _everything_.

Does an idea exist?

"Logic" such as this is why "tautology" and "religion" are so inextricably
associated!

John

 

[Don Bowey]

Ergo, "science" will never ever have a "theory of everything", since
without the "intangibles", it's simply not a theory of _everything_.

Nonsense. Let's just sit down and list a few scientific intangibles, and
we're there.

 

[John Larkin]

Ergo, "science" will never ever have a "theory of everything", since
without the "intangibles", it's simply not a theory of _everything_.

You're sory of complaining that a very good pastry chef isn't a great
airline pilot.

John

 

[Bob Myers]

Have you ever seen a snowflake? Howcome all six arms are the same as
each other?

Yes, I've seen a snowflake.

If you believe that the water molecules "knowing" what those
on the other arms are doing is the only possible explanation
for this symmetry, I would like to suggest that you're not
thinking hard enough.

Simpler, analogous question: what causes the symmetry in
a salt crystal?

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

It was made up by people, of course. People like you and me and
Einstein and Galileo and all that crowd.

You've pointed to several people who practiced "science"
at various times, but you still haven't said exactly who or what
it IS.

Newsflash: the above can be said for ANY such methodology
engaged in by humans - it's hardly a distinguishing characteristic
of science. Music was "made up by people." The writing of
poetry was "made up by people." You're going to have to do
much better than that.

Yes.

On http://www.godchannel.com

That site makes some very interesting, although completely
unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions. As to whether or
not it could possibly permit you to "get all of the answers there
are," two questions:

How has it done so far (i.e., what NEW knowledge has this
alternative provided that has been demonstrated to be "true")"

and

Why should we expect it to provide significantly more knowledge
(or knowledge of greater quality/accuracy) than other methods, over
- well, over whatever time period into the future you'd care to
select?

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

Does an idea exist?

Tell us precisely what you mean when you use the
symbols "idea" and "exist" in this context, and the
question answers itself. Many of the supposedly
"tough questions" of this ilk are of this nature - they're
actually exercises in sloppy semantics.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

THIS....

By what phenomenon do six snowflake arms, remote from each other in
space, make precisely the same crystal formation?

is an excellent question.

On the other hand, THIS

How does the crystal
arm know how to form itself the same as the others?

....is not, due an unwarranted assumption buried within it.

And then the next snowflake makes six formations of its own, all different
from the first snowflake, but all the same as each other?

If you'd really like to know, why not start with a different
question altogether:

Why six?


But...DO you really want to know?


Bob M.

 

[Tom]

Really?

Yes. Really.

Can it distinguish between, say, love, hate, fear, joy,
grief, anger, sadness, etc?

Roughly. It's a new technology. There's lots of fine tuning to be done,
but, yes, it can.

 

[Tom]

No, actually, you're wrong. You see, when someone givers you an example
of
some event you claim cannot occur, you have been shown to be wrong.

Well, let's back this truck up right here.

Just exactly when did I "claim [some event] cannot occur"?

"Scinece can't do this. Science can't do that." I'm not going to botwer
looking up your precise wording beccause you're too boring and it wouldn't
change the concrete in your head anyway.

 

[The Magpie]

You've pointed to several people who practiced "science"
at various times, but you still haven't said exactly who or what
it IS.

What ticks me off is godidiots who try to claim science is a "thing"
when really its just a *process* - as in verb rather than noun.

 

[Nevermore]

What ticks me off is godidiots who try to claim science is a "thing"
when really its just a *process* - as in verb rather than noun.

They do the same thing when they harp about the Theory of Evolution
being "just a theory" when in fact they are transposing just one of
several definitions of the word theory to their own ends.

Nevermore (transubstantiating really)

 

[Tom]

What ticks me off is godidiots who try to claim science is a "thing"
when really its just a *process* - as in verb rather than noun.

Actually, the guy apparently thinks "Science" is an entity, since he
capitalizes the term as one would a proper noun. Some sort of demon,
perhaps, sent by "The Devil" to deceive us hapless mortals into doubting the
divine truth of "God" as revealed by this or that posturing cleric.

Here in alt.magick, we like to counter such demonic forces by calling forth
the corresponding angelic being. In this case, he might wish to evoke the
great and holy angel, "Blind Faith", to bind that evil demon "Science" from
his fiendish plan to employ reason and carefully examined evidence to cause
mankind to fall into sin.

 

[Richard Henry]

They do the same thing when they harp about the Theory of Evolution
being "just a theory" when in fact they are transposing just one of
several definitions of the word theory to their own ends.

Nevermore (transubstantiating really)

When you ask one of those what it is about evolution that they
disagree with, they often respond with nonsense like "6000 years is
not enough time to evolve all the species on Earth today".

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Yes. Really.


Roughly. It's a new technology. There's lots of fine tuning to be done,
but, yes, it can.

Cool! So one day, "science" might actually acknowledge that feelings
are real?

That would go a long way toward healing the problems we have these
days.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

So you're wrong again.

No, actually, I'm right,

No, actually, you're wrong. You see, when someone givers you an example
of
some event you claim cannot occur, you have been shown to be wrong.

Well, let's back this truck up right here.

Just exactly when did I "claim [some event] cannot occur"?

"Scinece can't do this. Science can't do that." I'm not going to botwer
looking up your precise wording beccause you're too boring and it wouldn't
change the concrete in your head anyway.

You're "not going to bother looking up [my] precise wording" because
it doesn't exist.

**** off, troll.
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

When you ask one of those what it is about evolution that they
disagree with, they often respond with nonsense like "6000 years is
not enough time to evolve all the species on Earth today".

I find it fascinating that the mere mention of "god" immediately
throws people into definsive mode: "You're promoting RELIGION!! IT's
BOGUS! IT'S ALL SUPERSTITION!!!!! You're WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! IT's
Been PROVED!!!!!

All of the religions are wrong - in fact, the Bible was written primarily
by Saten, and the Koran/Torah/whatever was written by Lucifer. (those
are Spirit's two major denials, Satan AKA Ahriman, and Lucifer, who have
manifested as competing devils.

But, if you can't transcend your religiophobia long enough to consider
an additional possibility that no one's thought of yet, then I guess
you're doomed to follow the same old path as all of the billions who
have gone before.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Actually, the guy apparently thinks "Science" is an entity, since he
capitalizes the term as one would a proper noun. Some sort of demon,
perhaps, sent by "The Devil" to deceive us hapless mortals into doubting the
divine truth of "God" as revealed by this or that posturing cleric.

Here in alt.magick, we like to counter such demonic forces by calling forth
the corresponding angelic being. In this case, he might wish to evoke the
great and holy angel, "Blind Faith", to bind that evil demon "Science" from
his fiendish plan to employ reason and carefully examined evidence to cause
mankind to fall into sin.

And, do you continue to deny The Mother of Everything?
http://godchannel.com/expguide.html

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Bob Myers]

Cool! So one day, "science" might actually acknowledge that feelings
are real?

Whatever gave you the impression that "science" doesn't
already?

Again, just what do you think "science" IS, anyway?

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

And, do you continue to deny The Mother of Everything?

It's not a denial to ask for evidence and reasoning in
support of a proposition. However, a proposition which
comes without either evidence or reasoning is a mere
assertion which, at that stage, should be neither accepted
nor denied. It's incomplete, and not yet worthy of serious
consideration.

If you would like to describe what you mean by "Mother
of Everything," and provide your evidence and reasoning
which would compel someone to accept that assertion,
I'm sure many people here would find it interesting.

Bob M.

 

[Nevermore]

From: Rich the Philosophizer <rtp@example.com>
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.religion.wicca,sci.environment,sci.geo.
geology,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Why Science is Ridiculous
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:51:38 GMT




I find it fascinating that the mere mention of "god" immediately
throws people into definsive mode: "You're promoting RELIGION!! IT's
BOGUS! IT'S ALL SUPERSTITION!!!!! You're WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! IT's
Been PROVED!!!!!

All of the religions are wrong - in fact, the Bible was written
primarily by Saten, and the Koran/Torah/whatever was written by
Lucifer. (those are Spirit's two major denials, Satan AKA Ahriman, and
Lucifer, who have manifested as competing devils.

But, if you can't transcend your religiophobia long enough to consider
an additional possibility that no one's thought of yet, then I guess
you're doomed to follow the same old path as all of the billions who
have gone before.

Yeah, sure. BILLIONS of witches have trod this weary path in the salt
marshes.

Nevermore