Yep. Some day in the far future we will realize that airplanes, antibiotics, electricity, radios etc don't actually work and we've been imagining the whole thing.
New book calls science a "Priesthood"
- Thread starter rpenner
- Start date
Yep. Some day in the far future we will realize that airplanes, antibiotics, electricity, radios etc don't actually work and we've been imagining the whole thing.
They don't prove science works. They prove that measurements work. For example if Gravity is a push, and not a pull, the airplane still works as a measurement, but the measurement is backwards. A ruler is 1ft long from both ends. If an electron is negative mass, and not mass it still contains the same mass, like a bucket can contain its whole as water.
A Saturn 5 rocket has little to do with measurement. It has a lot to do with basic science - metallurgy, thermodyamics, Newton's laws, aerodynamics etc. And you can spin some good yarns about your theories, but unless they are correct that craft won't fly.
But that Apollo mission would never have gotten to the Moon if it was a push instead of a pull. It did - so science was right.
That's a semantics game. The name itself doesn't matter - it is the ability of science to accurately predict the behavior of an electron that makes science valid. (And makes it possible for you to post on this board.)
Nice post, but more importantly, who does your hair?
Reversed gravity allows all of the above. You wouldn't know the difference. Newtons laws also work backwards, and in other unlikely ways.
Unfortunately the craft flies as predicted, and that's why science is a mess.
No, it doesn't. Gravity is given by the equation F=G((M1*M2)/r2) where M are the masses, r is the distance between them and G is the gravitational constant.
If, as you claim, gravity was "pushing" from somewhere instead of pulling between two bodies that equation would not be valid - and the Apollo missions would never have gotten to the Moon.
It works if you change Mass to Negative mass, and then reverse the formula. You turn Earth into a sponge, and Gravity into a liquid.
If you mean that -F=-G((M1*M2)/r2) then yes - you can multiply both sides by any number you like and the equation is just as valid. That is a mathematical trick, akin to a 10 year old claiming he's not really 10 because he's negative minus 10.
Soft Sciences can be more like Religion, but mainly because for the most part they don't deal with testing empirical evidence.
For instance a Psychiatrist will use a mixture of third-person information by the way of "peer reviewed" medical journals and observations as a "practitioner", however their observations aren't necessarily as coordinate as a Hard Science, their observations might rely upon themselves, colleagues and patients being witnesses (as it should be known "witness statements" are often deemed as being very poor sources of evidence since witnesses can be biased, uninformative or just incoherent.)
A dose of a particular drug in mentioned in a journal might have some simplified mathematics expressing how to increase or decrease it's volume in regards to a patients mass, however since there is no "pre-initialisation" in the sense of examining a patient with an industry standard check-list to identify discrepancies, often the observed reaction of the dose is misinterpreted and recorded wrongly in such journals.
In this profession there is a fine line between Quacks and Doctors due to this reason, at least in regards to the "Old School" variety (Younger up and coming practitioners at least have the capacity to try and identify failures in the older systems).
For instance a Psychiatrist will use a mixture of third-person information by the way of "peer reviewed" medical journals and observations as a "practitioner", however their observations aren't necessarily as coordinate as a Hard Science, their observations might rely upon themselves, colleagues and patients being witnesses (as it should be known "witness statements" are often deemed as being very poor sources of evidence since witnesses can be biased, uninformative or just incoherent.)
A dose of a particular drug in mentioned in a journal might have some simplified mathematics expressing how to increase or decrease it's volume in regards to a patients mass, however since there is no "pre-initialisation" in the sense of examining a patient with an industry standard check-list to identify discrepancies, often the observed reaction of the dose is misinterpreted and recorded wrongly in such journals.
In this profession there is a fine line between Quacks and Doctors due to this reason, at least in regards to the "Old School" variety (Younger up and coming practitioners at least have the capacity to try and identify failures in the older systems).
Yep, it's the trick that science uses. But my way, you get Dark Matter just naturally.
1 Organized worship, ah yeah to the point of anal retardation .
Most people are locked out from not even being able to comprehend the language . Specialized Language of each discipline.
Think of it this way . Every thing you do every move you make is a ritual .
Routine ! Are you a routine kind of person ?
2 It is called a diploma. Surprise you got one don't you . P.H.D. what ? What you got ?
3 Sounds like a mission statement of a Priesthood to Me
Quack! Quack! Yeah Priest Hood I will go with that , Just not a God Fearing Priesthood.
You guys got Fraternities from the Good old Days ?
Missoula is big on getting the old cronies back together for fund raisers and such .
Y. Science is just another sphere of influence in a divided world . You got to dig deeper boy ! You your self cling to Christian values . I know you do . All against the primal urges of true humanity. The hidden agenda of the individual soul shared in common with all the other animals .
It is O.K. I got nothing against Priesthoods and when they allow women to be part of the circle of influence I am all on board . I like coed the best .
Any body can read the bible . Martin Luther did that for us . So Open Library . No hold water there either except the Cathlics . They got a book I want " De Magna Domo Sapientia . I might of got the last word wrong . The Great House wisdom. That is what means . They got it locked up and well it is in Latin and I am not all that brushed up on my Latin . I guess I should work on that one . Put it on my laundry list of rituals.
Go Priest Hoods . I am routing for the scientific model . I like you
Last edited:
Nice post, but more importantly, who does your hair?
Actually I'm bald with a rattlesnake bone where I used to have a nose ring. But thanks for asking. Hey: your comment on Queensland weirdness and physicists not understanding pockets nappies
bugeye was memorably funny. It was still amusing to read it a second time when this thread resurfaced. If you're not already doing standup as a second gig, you can use me for a reference.
Oh, looks like I struck a nerve there. So what gets under your skin the most, anti-religiosity, or anti-conspiracy theory?
The thing that gets under my skin the most is science being sure that it can use the word crank, and woo woo, thinking that it is safe under 100's of years of Newton. Where in fact Newton screwed science up, and nobody ever noticed. Then Einstein came along, and included a new way to interpret Newton, and because Newton got things backwards, Einstein also got things backwards.
That is a bold statement .
Is it because he thought him self the Christ instead of Jesus ? Did that have any barring on your proclamation ?
No one noticed for 100's of years; except for YOU. The only human who’s intellect surpasses the combined work of Newton and Einstein. Hallelujah, praise science! May we all prostrate before you and grovel at your feet asking only that you bestow a bubble of knowledge on us.
Bwahahahaha
Uh, no, it's the trick YOU just used.
If it's a choice between science and your sort of silly tricks it's an easy decision to make.
It's easy to decide on science which doesn't work... OK.
Exactly. Science that can be demonstrated in a lab via repeatable experiments? Works. "Science" that some guy on an Internet forum thinks up? Probably doesn't work.
Pincho Paxton
Newton was right enough for his time, the effects of Relativity being beyond the ability to measure with instruments of the time(though the precession of the orbit of Mercury was known). Einstein's work was in no way based on Newton. Newton had no idea what was the "attractive force" of gravity, Einstein showed there was no attractive force, it was a curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass that causes gravity. The two views have nothing in common but the result. And, so far, Einstein is correct, every attempt to falsify proving fruitless, every prediction being confirmed. While that may not always be so, you certainly haven't shown Einstein to be wrong simply because the...stuff you spout doesn't conform to the reality Einstein showed to be true. While not as bad as some I have read here, your pronoucements certainly fit within the class called woo and being unable to recognize and correct that certainly approaches the definition of crank.
Grumpy
Newton was right enough for his time, the effects of Relativity being beyond the ability to measure with instruments of the time(though the precession of the orbit of Mercury was known). Einstein's work was in no way based on Newton. Newton had no idea what was the "attractive force" of gravity, Einstein showed there was no attractive force, it was a curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass that causes gravity. The two views have nothing in common but the result. And, so far, Einstein is correct, every attempt to falsify proving fruitless, every prediction being confirmed. While that may not always be so, you certainly haven't shown Einstein to be wrong simply because the...stuff you spout doesn't conform to the reality Einstein showed to be true. While not as bad as some I have read here, your pronoucements certainly fit within the class called woo and being unable to recognize and correct that certainly approaches the definition of crank.
Grumpy