Canada: Liberal churches in decline while orthodox ones grow
fifeboy @ Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:05 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
fifeboy fifeboy:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
In Newton's time the occult and alchemy were legitimate fields of study. Had not serious men like Newton studied topics like these they would have never been debunked.
I suppose you could consider that Newton's studies in these fields taught him how to approach the work we know him for in our time.
I suppose you could consider that Newton's studies in these fields taught him how to approach the work we know him for in our time.
As in science describes the actual world and can be used to predict things whereas religion, the occult and alchemy don't seem to do that.
In Newton's time these things were real.
In Saudi Arabia they still are and people get put to death for sorcery and alchemy with an alarming regularity.
They were only real in Newton's time because they didn't know any better. They were only "real" because there was no better explanation.
It is still superstition and only explains stuff to people who are willfully ignorant.
BartSimpson @ Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:10 pm
fifeboy fifeboy:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
In Newton's time these things were real.
In Saudi Arabia they still are and people get put to death for sorcery and alchemy with an alarming regularity.
They were only real in Newton's time because they didn't know any better. They were only "real" because there was no better explanation.
It is still superstition and only explains stuff to people who are willfully ignorant.
You should be more forgiving because in a few hundred years (or maybe sooner) we'll be getting trashed for not knowing better about shit we currently take seriously and accept as real.
The people in 2416 will look back at us and say, "WTF were they thinking?"
fifeboy @ Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:20 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
fifeboy fifeboy:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
In Newton's time these things were real.
In Saudi Arabia they still are and people get put to death for sorcery and alchemy with an alarming regularity.
They were only real in Newton's time because they didn't know any better. They were only "real" because there was no better explanation.
It is still superstition and only explains stuff to people who are willfully ignorant.
You should be more forgiving because in a few hundred years (or maybe sooner) we'll be getting trashed for not knowing better about shit we currently take seriously and accept as real.
The people in 2416 will look back at us and say, "WTF were they thinking?"
I don't think so. The nice thing about science based thinking is accepting data after it has been tested and retested and is useful in explaining some aspect of reality. In science the refrain will more likely be "that explains it better, but let's keep investigating."
BartSimpson @ Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:14 am
fifeboy fifeboy:
I don't think so. The nice thing about science based thinking is accepting data after it has been tested and retested and is useful in explaining some aspect of reality. In science the refrain will more likely be "that explains it better, but let's keep investigating."
Here's a list of scientifically tested and retested drugs that were removed from the market - many because the scientific testing was either biased or flawed and failed to note sometimes lethal side-effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
The current understandings of science are polluted by politics and orthodoxies and the results produced by this politically-affected science are often spectacularly flawed.
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:17 am
Interesting that Galileo was sentenced to life in prison(ended up as house arrest until his death), for holding to his heliocentric theory, in direct contravention with the scientific consensus of his time. Sounds like Suzuki took some lessons from them with his call to jail dissenting scientists.
Lemmy @ Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:56 am
b
fifeboy @ Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:23 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
fifeboy fifeboy:
I don't think so. The nice thing about science based thinking is accepting data after it has been tested and retested and is useful in explaining some aspect of reality. In science the refrain will more likely be "that explains it better, but let's keep investigating."
Here's a list of scientifically tested and retested drugs that were removed from the market - many because the scientific testing was either biased or flawed and failed to note sometimes lethal side-effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
The current understandings of science are polluted by politics and orthodoxies and the results produced by this politically-affected science are often spectacularly flawed.
Drugs are an example of science being done for industry and industry screwing with the scientific method to get the results it wants. I have always said that research should be paid for by government and not industry for this reason. We saw the same thing with the tobacco debates and (OH MY GOD) the global warming debate. Many of the problems that arise from what is often called "bad science" isn't bad science but incomplete science. Ag. science advocating for the use of antibiotics in meat production wasn't bad in the sense it didn't work but that it effected other shit further down the line. The failure of the Space Shuttle came from a failure of mechanics, not of the science of getting large heavy objects into orbit. The problem of dealing with politics and industry will remain. Independent funding of research will help. Orthodoxies are more difficult because of peer review being done by the already established and therefore orthodox establishment.
BartSimpson @ Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:46 am
fifeboy fifeboy:
The failure of the Space Shuttle came from a failure of mechanics, not of the science of getting large heavy objects into orbit.
The Challenger disaster was a direct result of politically motivated managers refusing the warnings of engineers who knew their stuff and who said that the booster rocket's O-rings would fail in low temperatures.
It was not a failure of mechanics. It was management working the same way it always does.
And that's my point: the best science in the world usually can't prevail against the weight of management and the orthodoxy.
AGW is no different. It has en established orthodoxy and anyone questioning it is a heretic...even if their science is sound.
fifeboy @ Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:48 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Interesting that Galileo was sentenced to life in prison(ended up as house arrest until his death), for holding to his heliocentric theory, in direct contravention with the scientific consensus of his time. Sounds like Suzuki took some lessons from them with his call to jail dissenting scientists.
I thought it was Pols he wanted to jail. If the call included dissenting scientists, that's different. Pols on the other hand... However, if they are dissenting because they are actually just acting as paid lobbyist for some interest group...we could let some of the CKA members put a hunk of lead in their brainpan.
BartSimpson @ Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:56 am
fifeboy fifeboy:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Interesting that Galileo was sentenced to life in prison(ended up as house arrest until his death), for holding to his heliocentric theory, in direct contravention with the scientific consensus of his time. Sounds like Suzuki took some lessons from them with his call to jail dissenting scientists.
I thought it was Pols he wanted to jail. If the call included dissenting scientists, that's different. Pols on the other hand... However, if they are dissenting because they are actually just acting as paid lobbyist for some interest group...we could let some of the CKA members put a hunk of lead in their brainpan.
fifeboy @ Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:57 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
fifeboy fifeboy:
The failure of the Space Shuttle came from a failure of mechanics, not of the science of getting large heavy objects into orbit.
The Challenger disaster was a direct result of politically motivated managers refusing the warnings of engineers who knew their stuff and who said that the booster rocket's O-rings would fail in low temperatures.
It was not a failure of mechanics. It was management working the same way it always does.
And that's my point: the best science in the world usually can't prevail against the weight of management and the orthodoxy.
AGW is no different. It has en established orthodoxy and anyone questioning it is a heretic...even if their science is sound.
On the Challanger: I will have to defer to you on this one. Managers can be a PITB and often do stuff like that. It wasn't though, a failure of science. Kind of like the Quarter Master in the film Zulu, accounting for every bullet while disaster unfolds around him.
On AGW though, I think we are dealing with paid lobbyist on the anti side. I will let others argue that though. Don't want to wade through too many piles of doggy doo trying to see what that side is doing.
