Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

spyguy

Science does not have all the answer

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I'm not really sure what that article is trying to argue for.

More funding for the humanities, Id guess.

And for people to stop laughing and saying humanities are a load of ******.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What have the Romans has science ever done for us?

Apart from roads, aqueducts, sanitation, medicine, agriculture, etc... etc...

 

 

I'd argue that the problem is not with 'science' or with 'the humanities' - each has their place - but with all the cargo-cult remoras who claim an unjustified cloak of respectability. E.g. when economists claim to be 'scientists' (har-har-har) or when Fulchester Polyversity Media Studies lecturers claim to speak for the humanities. Basically there's a whole lot of debasement going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, spyguy said:

More funding for the humanities, Id guess.

And for people to stop laughing and saying humanities are a load of ******.

It's useful to have an idea how people behave. People who trot out "science doesn't have all the answers" are usually rather ignorant though, appearing to make claims on its behalf that it doesn't make in order to uphold something dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way it cites a work of popular fiction to support it's case.

 

Utter quasi logical nonsense of the highest order. Shame on the guardian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always difficult to tell whether they mean 'science', as in actual science, or 'science' the funny left-liberal global warming cult led by Richard Dawkins, and Brian Cox, that thinks a consensus amongst its members means something is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, happy_renting said:

Science does not have all the answers. Science is the search for the answers.

Whereas Humanities is a search for a grant ....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SNACR said:

Always difficult to tell whether they mean 'science', as in actual science, or 'science' the funny left-liberal global warming cult led by Richard Dawkins, and Brian Cox, that thinks a consensus amongst its members means something is right.

Or whether science includes those who deny plausibility to scientific theories that are overwhelmingly supported by the entire Scientific community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Kurt Barlow said:

Or whether science includes those who deny plausibility to scientific theories that are overwhelmingly supported by the entire Scientific community.

Wrong. In history a lot of revolutionary scientific findings were at first ignored and then opposed/denied by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Science isn't a democracy, only facts count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, spyguy said:

Whereas Humanities is a search for a grant ....

A lot of scientific researchers depend on grants too, often so much that they bend the results of their studies if necessary to receive the next grant (MMGW is the perfect example for this but it surely happens in other fields too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Eagle said:

Wrong. In history a lot of revolutionary scientific findings were at first ignored and then opposed/denied by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Science isn't a democracy, only facts count.

I agree. 99.9% of fact supports AGW theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Eagle said:

A lot of scientific researchers depend on grants too, often so much that they bend the results of their studies if necessary to receive the next grant (MMGW is the perfect example for this but it surely happens in other fields too).

Yet if you could come up with a plausible model disproving AGW then the FF industry would throw dinothorian amounts of cash at you (as opposed to the 20K a year bursary for PHD type grants).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Eagle said:

Wrong. In history a lot of revolutionary scientific findings were at first ignored and then opposed/denied by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Science isn't a democracy, only facts count.

You mean like Vaccine theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Eagle said:

Wrong. In history a lot of revolutionary scientific findings were at first ignored and then opposed/denied by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Science isn't a democracy, only facts count.

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

A pretty poor attempt at a point by Sagan there - a clown's explicit job is to make people laugh, in genuine mirth not personal ridicule.  A clown doesn't aim to propose out-of-the-box ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Qetesuesi said:

A pretty poor attempt at a point by Sagan there - a clown's explicit job is to make people laugh, in genuine mirth not personal ridicule.  A clown doesn't aim to propose out-of-the-box ideas.

That doesn't change the point, that just because some people have been laughed at turned out to be right it in any way validates people who get laughed at now, so "They laughed at these other people" is no argument. It's a form of appeal to ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That doesn't change the point, that just because some people have been laughed at turned out to be right it in any way validates people who get laughed at now, so "They laughed at these other people" is no argument. It's a form of appeal to ignorance.

Of course, but there are those who want the other extreme, which is also fallacious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science certainly doesn't have all the answers to science..

Quote

NASA's study developed on the "impossible" propulsion system manages to pass a major test.

The long-awaited EmDrive paper of NASA has now been peer-reviewed and published with the title, "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum". But if there's no action (burning of fuel), how can there be a reaction (propulsion)?

 

http://mjbstar.com/2016/11/22/nasas-physics-defying-em-drive-just-passed-peer-review/

Edit to add:  damn,  already a whole thread on,  WTH did that come from :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, happy_renting said:

Science does not have all the answers. Science is the search for the answers.

Science is the search for invariance principles from which universal mathematical laws may be derived. For instance, the four local space-time invariances - translational invariance, time-translational invariance, rotational invariance and Galilean invariance - which represent the foundations of classical mechanics and General Relativity. Where invariance principles cannot be identified the evolution of the universe is too random (algorithmically complex) or opaque (computationally undecidable) to be described by mathematical law. Without invoking supernatural agencies the description 'Here Be Dragons' then becomes the limit of our understanding. The seemingly random behaviour of stock-market prices may be such a domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   96 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.