Poll:- life better now or in 1959?

countryboy

Traditionally Progressive
Nov 30, 2009
3,686
39
48
BC
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.

SirJP...How do you arrive at the "you would rather stick to religion" remark? In all the nice discussions we've had, I can't recall having said much that focused on religion. I know I talk a lot about people and common sense but I've been branded as a "religious" person before...that is a new one! I shall review the facts (threads) to see what I said and will get back to you on this. Please be patient...I'm on dial-up!
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
You're not far off; I seem to recall that shortly before one of the missions, someone discovered that in the programming, they had the moon's gravity as a negative value.

TenPenny the landing on the moon was done with the help of a computer with the capacity of 27,000 bytes (that was the state of the art computer in those days). These days, we talk of computers in terms of gigabytes. It was almost miraculous what they accomplished with such a primitive computer.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
"a theory is well established part of science, supported by scientific experiments, scientific facts"- A theory is based on very little, it is merely a scientific hunch, once it's supported by scientific experiments and "facts", it then becomes a conclusion. Conclusions are not all valid.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
SirJP...How do you arrive at the "you would rather stick to religion" remark? In all the nice discussions we've had, I can't recall having said much that focused on religion. I know I talk a lot about people and common sense but I've been branded as a "religious" person before...that is a new one! I shall review the facts (threads) to see what I said and will get back to you on this. Please be patient...I'm on dial-up!

Read my post again carefully, countryboy. I did not say “you would rather stick to religion”, I said “if you would rather stick to religion”, there is a big difference.

What I am in essence saying is that I don’t know if you would rather stick to religion. But if you would rather stick to religion that is your prerogative. Give me science any day, with all its limitations.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
"a theory is well established part of science, supported by scientific experiments, scientific facts"- A theory is based on very little, it is merely a scientific hunch, once it's supported by scientific experiments and "facts", it then becomes a conclusion. Conclusions are not all valid.


No it is not, JLM. That is what I have been trying to tell you. The word ‘theory has one meaning in common language and another meaning in science. In common language, theory is based upon very little and can be dismissed out of hand (it is just a theory). In science, a theory is a hypothesis which is well supported by experimental evidence.

Thus, there is overwhelming evidence for theories such as relativity, Big Band, evolution etc. Yet they are still theories. We have theory of Relativity, we don’t have conclusion of Relativity. A theory is not based upon very little. As you rightly pointed out, they made use of many theories when sending the man to the moon. In science, a theory is a well established scientific idea, well supported by scientific experiments and facts.
 

countryboy

Traditionally Progressive
Nov 30, 2009
3,686
39
48
BC
Read my post again carefully, countryboy. I did not say “you would rather stick to religion”, I said “if you would rather stick to religion”, there is a big difference.

What I am in essence saying is that I don’t know if you would rather stick to religion. But if you would rather stick to religion that is your prerogative. Give me science any day, with all its limitations.

OK, I read the post again...here is the paragraph: If you think that scientific method is all rubbish, that you would rather stick to religion, why that is your prerogative. Hate to pick any nits here, but up above there you sort of have it right.

But I digress...I think we're way off track here although I keep trying to find some relationship between your views on the wonders of science and the topic which we're supposed to be following ... I vaguely recall it had something to do with 1959 vs. 2009. Therefore, I suggest we call it a draw and either get back on track or shut 'er down. I'm getting really bored reading all about scientific theory as I don't have any particular interest in it. There seems to be no point to it.

It's been fun...well, it started out that way... :cool:
 

countryboy

Traditionally Progressive
Nov 30, 2009
3,686
39
48
BC
Fresh Start (for me)...
In 1959, life was good. All the baby boomers had been born so schools were being built everywhere, families were sitting down to dinner every night (together), cars looked good, the future was full of promise, and pretty much everything was just ducky.

In 2009, people are overloaded with high tax burdens, commuter stress, information overload, side effects from all the meds they're on, and the future looks less than bright to many.

1959 is the hands-down winner - life was better then!
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Fresh Start (for me)...
In 1959, life was good. All the baby boomers had been born so schools were being built everywhere, families were sitting down to dinner every night (together), cars looked good, the future was full of promise, and pretty much everything was just ducky.

In 2009, people are overloaded with high tax burdens, commuter stress, information overload, side effects from all the meds they're on, and the future looks less than bright to many.

1959 is the hands-down winner - life was better then!
I'm wichoo! Lots a people hurtin'. The promise of "better life through chemistry" has turned into a nightmare, people are getting more brain dead from TV overload (how else can you explain "reality TV"?). People are so stresssed that I am surprised that people's heads just don't explode where they stand.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Fresh Start (for me)...
In 1959, life was good. All the baby boomers had been born so schools were being built everywhere, families were sitting down to dinner every night (together), cars looked good, the future was full of promise, and pretty much everything was just ducky.

In 2009, people are overloaded with high tax burdens, commuter stress, information overload, side effects from all the meds they're on, and the future looks less than bright to many.

1959 is the hands-down winner - life was better then!

Glad we got through the "detour". I have a theory :)lol::lol::lol::lol:) that will perhaps be satisfactory to everyone, S.J. included - life was better in 1959, life is easier in 2009. Ironically the easiness is killing us.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
that will perhaps be satisfactory to everyone, S.J. included - life was better in 1959, life is easier in 2009. Ironically the easiness is killing us.[/quote]</p>
You make a good point JLM, but we can overcome the killing part by'not' buying into many of the negative and harmfull 2009 ideas, andstay with many of our l959 ideas, it can be done, and we can havebest of both worlds.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
You may have something there, counrtyboy, scientific research is like groping in the dark for answers.
Sometimes. Other times it is verifying educated guesses or hypotheses. lmao
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.
Sometimes they are right on the money and a few of the details are all that is amiss.
There are plenty of uncertainties in science. However, I would take scientific uncertainties any day, over certainty of Fundamentalists.
Isn't a scientist a fundamentalist?
"Ah, whatta maroon" - B. Bunny

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.
For one who gabs a lot about what science is and isn't, you sure make a lot of assumptions and errors about it.



It is not my job to convince you of anything. I can only describe scientific method to you.
..... badly
If you think that scientific method is all rubbish, that you would rather stick to religion, why that is your prerogative.
Indeed.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
The scientific method:
The answer is that, while science can be done (and often is) following different kinds of protocols, the description of the scientific method includes some very important features that should lead to understanding some very basic aspects of all scientific practice. Some of these would be:

  • The importance of posing an accessible problem, and formulating testable predictions;
  • The necessity of testability of hypotheses;
  • The need for clear critical thinking in assessing the evidence collected, from whatever method;
  • The tentative nature of all scientific conclusions;
  • The circular path of scientific investigation; and
  • Some very important practical aspects of scientific investigation.
With these purposes in mind, let's take a look at this hairy old icon of scientific process. Just what is the scientific method?
The Scientific Method

The scientific method is generally described as a series of steps. Though we speak of a scientific method, you will find that different sources list slightly different steps, though they all turn out to mean precisely the same thing. In your text, the list is:

  • Observations
  • Questioning
  • Hypothesis
  • Testing
  • Explanation
Scientific Method
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I'm wichoo! Lots a people hurtin'. The promise of "better life through chemistry" has turned into a nightmare, people are getting more brain dead from TV overload (how else can you explain "reality TV"?). People are so stresssed that I am surprised that people's heads just don't explode where they stand.
The body has natural defenses against sensory overload.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Glad we got through the "detour". I have a theory :)lol::lol::lol::lol:) that will perhaps be satisfactory to everyone, S.J. included - life was better in 1959, life is easier in 2009. Ironically the easiness is killing us.
That's ok. :)
IMO, life is just different. Different benefits, different problems. Life goes on.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
that will perhaps be satisfactory to everyone, S.J. included - life was better in 1959, life is easier in 2009. Ironically the easiness is killing us.
</p>
You make a good point JLM, but we can overcome the killing part by'not' buying into many of the negative and harmfull 2009 ideas, andstay with many of our l959 ideas, it can be done, and we can havebest of both worlds.[/quote]

Absolutely and very easy to do, eliminate street drugs 100% and prescriptions drugs about 80%, don't buy (into) anything advertised on T.V. , spend at least an hour or two every day outdoors, treat others like you want to be treated and turn off the T.V. except when Canucks games are on.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
</p>
You make a good point JLM, but we can overcome the killing part by'not' buying into many of the negative and harmfull 2009 ideas, andstay with many of our l959 ideas, it can be done, and we can havebest of both worlds.

Absolutely and very easy to do, eliminate street drugs 100% and prescriptions drugs about 80%, don't buy (into) anything advertised on T.V. , spend at least an hour or two every day outdoors, treat others like you want to be treated and turn off the T.V. except when Canucks games are on.[/quote]

great minds think alike
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Ooooooooh Anna................he did say can, but I don't think he meant necessarily so.
And my point was that I doubt anyone could disprove evolution theory; they could only fiddle with some of the details. Even laws can be upended, so Pompass isn't saying much of anything.

Laws can be proven different. Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity, for instance. Also, given certain circumstances, constants can be variable. Speed of light, for instance. :D