Poll:- life better now or in 1959?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
S.J. I asked you earlier if you think the Justice System in Canada is satisfactory- (if it's any of my business) and haven't seen a reply.
Well, all I can say is it must take a lot of faith (excuse my use of THAT "F" word) to believe so strongly in something you can't see...like concrete. "Almost universally accepted" - in concrete terms - reminds of that old expression, "I'm only a little bit pregnant." How can that be?
If I were prone to being argumentative (which of course I'm not
), I could sum it all up by saying science all starts with a "WAG" (wild *ssed guess), followed by a frantic amount of activity trying to prove that the WAG is right, and then eventually agreed upon by the other folks who think like I do (the scientists), thus becoming accepted as "fact"...the final word in "F" words!Sorry, you haven't convinced me of the absolute rule of science yet. I did like playing around with the test tubes in school back in '59 (see? Still on topic) so science has always held a certain degree of entertainment value for me. Still does, especially during the course of this debate.
Or maybe it's just a case of "ignorance is bliss."
Wrong. There is data, hypotheses, laws, equipment, scientists, etc.
You wouldn't have known that till someone posted it waaay back when..... 1959 I think it was.
:roll
rove the theory of evolution wrong then. Experiment on it. Sorry, but the idea that things evolve is fact, not guesswork.
Wrong. There is data, hypotheses, laws, equipment, scientists, labtechs, etc.
A scientific theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations.
"A scientific theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations."-
Holy smokes, Anna, you know stuff.
Holy smokes, Anna, you know stuff.
"Science contains nothing but theories, countryboy. "- Oooooooooh that is very interesting. So that means that landing men on the moon was accomplished by only using a bunch of theories. Like a series of calculations if done by 500 men with calculators would take 600 years (roughly speaking) Now theories (not necessarily being facts), it must have been just a case of s;h*thouse luck that those guys hit the moon.
But then again, that theory might be invalidated by another that says they never actually went to the moon because their thin-skinned aluminum module would have allowed them to cook to a crisp as they passed through the Van Allen radiation belt. Oh, oh..two conflicting theories, but both expressed by real, honest-to-gosh scientists. Shoot, another conundrum. Granted, there are more scientists that believe they actually went to the moon that there are those that don't believe it. Does the majority rule in science or just in a democracy?
To futher complicate this scientific line of thought, the simpler of those answers would be to say they didn't go to the moon. Which means the other guys would be labouring under the burden of proof to show they DID go to the moon.
Mind you, that debate is still going on so I guess somebody's having some trouble picking the simpler answer. Or perhaps they're working on a hypothesis. Or busily evaluating data and charts. Whatever...at least they're all keepin' busy.
As my Grannie used to say (back in 1959...remember? The topic...), "busy hands keep you out of trouble." At least, that was her theory. And she didn't have to prove it - she was older than me so I had to obey. How very unscientific and intolerant!
That wouldn't have been a big thing, would have just meant they hit the moon on the opposite side, but of course that fact never was divulged until now.
Scientific evidence is hardly anecdotal evidence, JLM. A scientist describes in detail the experiments he did and the conclusions he arrived at. Anybody is free to repeat the experiments and reproduce the results. That is totally different from anecdotal evidence (such and such a thing happened ten years ago or 50 years ago).
Scientific evidence is the best there is, anecdotal evidence is worth very little.
OK, that is nice and as you know the workings of our justice system is based on anecdotal evidence (not hearsay) anecdotal evidence - witnesses testifying to things as they remember seeing them, experts giving evaluations etc. based on what they've learned or found from experience. All this is acceptable in an important situation where a man's life could be in the balance, and yet you say, it's not acceptable for our banal debates. Square that round hole.
Well, all I can say is it must take a lot of faith (excuse my use of THAT "F" word) to believe so strongly in something you can't see...like concrete. "Almost universally accepted" - in concrete terms - reminds of that old expression, "I'm only a little bit pregnant." How can that be?
If I were prone to being argumentative (which of course I'm not
You may have something there, counrtyboy, scientific research is like groping in the dark for answers. Sometimes we reach a dead end, sometimes we end up at a different place that we thought we would, sometimes decades old, cherished theories are proved wrong. There are plenty of uncertainties in science. However, I would take scientific uncertainties any day, over certainty of Fundamentalists.
Scientific research is not pretty, many times it can be frustrating. However, science (and technology, which is only applied science) has brought us all this prosperity, has tremendously increased our world knowledge over the past couple of centuries. I would say science and scientific method has served human beings magnificently.
It is not my job to convince you of anything. I can only describe scientific method to you. If you think that scientific method is all rubbish, that you would rather stick to religion, why that is your prerogative.
You mean taking the word of scientists about sciences such as astronomy, geology, biochemistry etc. is easier than thinking for yourself? You are probably right.
Why, certainly it was, JLM. In executing the landing on the moon, scientists used the theory of gravitation, theory of planetary motion, theory of rocket propulsion, theories of heat transfer and many other theories, too numerous to mention.
Indeed, that is why I said, the word theory has one meaning in common parlance and a totally different meaning in scientific jargon. That is where the average person gets confused. In common parlance, something can be dismissed by saying that it is just a theory. In scientific arena, a theory is well established part of science, supported by scientific experiments, scientific facts. So yes, you can be sure that many theories were utilized in landing man on the moon.