Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomen
Sounds very much like a religious dogma to me. You put your faith into science and count or rather hope they are correct. Other put their faith in a book, in a scroll or verbal transmitted legends, or history. Button line is, it makes no difference. It is all about faith or believe in one system or construct or another.
|
no that is not true - you just claim this to minimise the value of the scientific method. The way UI describe it is not just taken out of the blue or by refrering to some fictional writing, but is basing on conclusions based on observation, it is based on my knowledge about science' own descritpion of it'S methodlogy and it'S inherent criterias. I do not need to just believe these things.
When I stand on a mass that revolves around itself, and I let fall an apple in my hand, then I even must not see it faling to the ground, but I
know it falls to the ground. Believing has nothing to do with it. I know there is an (uncomplete) theory of that gravitation, that bases on earlier observations and calculations, and that the strength of gravitation has something to do with how fast the apple falls. I can possibly even calculate the speed in advance, and where the apple will hit the ground.
Quote:
Oh, and just for the record: You might want to fact check your first sentence. It is the popular believe that it is in constant motion and non rigid. Unfortunately that is not always true. Especially heavy contested theories can be extremely rigid and outright hostile towards opponents, see Global Warming debate, or rather non debate for examples. The theory of creationism is another example of outright hostility and close mindedness, the same attributes that are slapped on religious believers, by the way.
Nice hypocrisy you got there..
|
that is bollocks, and you better should check your own understanding of facts first. Your error is that you do not differ between science and methodology, and
paradigm. Paradigms are long-lasting influential "meta-theories", so to speak, that serve as a praemisse for all subordinate scientific work being done, they also can influence the way an object of interest is being approached in method and observation design. But even paradigms do change over time. And never are their valdity that total that some rebels do not work in violation of them, sometimes proving them wrong, while often a poaradigm slowls fades out due to contradictions in the results it produces in observation and prediction. The relativisation of the Newton physics and Cartesian way to see and interprete the world may serve as examples.
That you think you must especially name Global Warming Scepticism and Creationism as examples defending your point, tells me something about how close-minded you are yourself. Becasue these express what you want to see taken as serious, but you do not check whether or not the claims of these do qualify for being seen as scientific argument. In case of creationism, it is no scientific qualification whatever, it even does not base on any basis of objective observation, but just narration and imgination, reilgious dogmatism and hear-say. In case of Global Warming Scepoticism, there has been so many, many systematic attempts by the interest economy elites to ridicule the statements of global waming research and every year a very influential lobby channels hundreds of millions in support for ridiciulous "alternative" scnearios who all just have two points in common: these constztructions are propagadanda efforts who heavily distort both existing scientific data or distort the scientific methodlogy to present their own"conclusions" or quote existing data out of context. From the "theory" of the more CO" the greener the pklanet to generally increasing ice levels at the poles, from sun activity being the deciding factor behind warming to fake petitions of thousands of scinetisits who either does not exist or were brought to sign by raising fake institutions and fake projects and showing them fake documents to sign, but then claimning they signed something different - the one that is presented to the public.
That all is no scientific methodology, and what it results in therefore rightfully should be rejected to be compared to scinece - as if it could meet science on same eye level.
It cannot.
Nevertheless to achieve this result is the purpose of your post.