Well, science clearly can not answer any of the important questions we have. Right? Instead it can only give us an guess that could end up being complete bs. lulz So what are your thoughts on Science: Is science "really" necessary?
There's a lot of science out there that is completely ridiculous and has no scientific basis. No? So.. why waste time/money doing a study/experiment like that? And why tell us completely crap that they can't prove anything.
Well, Let's say one day scientist would say one thing that their experiment/study or whatever suggest the results And the next day another scientist do the same thing and changes the theory. Isn't that quite annoying?
Joined: Dec 2009 Posts: 195 Location: under a bridge?
*BlackFox wrote:
Damn, calm down. xD
There's a lot of science out there that is completely ridiculous and has no scientific basis. No? So.. why waste time/money doing a study/experiment like that? And why tell us completely crap that they can't prove anything.
Well, Let's say one day scientist would say one thing that their experiment/study or whatever suggest the results And the next day another scientist do the same thing and changes the theory. Isn't that quite annoying?
So.. Does science really explain everything?
science that has no scientific basis? ...that isn't science in the first place. its called pseudo science.
_________________
NuclearSilo wrote:
whore will put addict drug on her pussy to attract men
Last edited by Hapjap on Sat Sep 17, 2011 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There's a lot of science out there that is completely ridiculous and has no scientific basis. No? So.. why waste time/money doing a study/experiment like that? And why tell us completely crap that they can't prove anything.
Well, Let's say one day scientist would say one thing that their experiment/study or whatever suggest the results And the next day another scientist do the same thing and changes the theory. Isn't that quite annoying?
So.. Does science really explain everything?
Why harp on science? Nothing we do can completely and fully explain everything and that goes for science and everything else that we try to use and explain stuff.... So like I said you might as well question the significance of everything.... People just naturally want to know or find things out that's all.
And if you want to get technical... scientific discoveries has made possible a huge amount of the conveniences you enjoy today like posting your question here for example. And I'm sure someone just like you now was skeptical about the pursuit of those discoveries and thought they were a waste of time and money.
_________________
_________________________________________________ BOWFull STR Fire level 102 -- ON A LONG BREAK..POSSIBLY FOREVER
There's a lot of science out there that is completely ridiculous and has no scientific basis. No? So.. why waste time/money doing a study/experiment like that? And why tell us completely crap that they can't prove anything.
Well, Let's say one day scientist would say one thing that their experiment/study or whatever suggest the results And the next day another scientist do the same thing and changes the theory. Isn't that quite annoying?
So.. Does science really explain everything?
What you're referring to is pseudo-science, not actual science. Real science relies on peer-reviews making it much more legit and verified than other methods of thought. Unlike religion where one person says something, it's recorded, and it is taken as true. Science work by making sure a finding is verified several times before being published.
If Science isn't necessary, then neither are computers, internet, pens, paper, cars, planes, etc. If you're happy living in the stone age, writing your thoughts down with blood or crushed leaves on a piece of wood, be my guest. I love science and not being ignorant.
_________________
.curve wrote:
Unless Silkroad has a hole I can stick it in, I prefer spending money on the girlfriend.
I think your sentiments are understandable but they're incredibly misguided.
Fundamental cornerstones of reality cannot be explained very well by people who are also bound by those same cognitive limitations. Descriptors of simple things would simply be boiled down to similes or metaphors with no real objective meaning behind them. Science fixes this by allowing people to put objective value that will be true no matter who the observer is.
Science is nothing more than a filter for gathering knowledge through simple observation, and as such, no one can hold any evidence hostage because if a statements is true, then it will continue being true no matter who is conducting the experiment or observation. If it is false, then any capable being can debunk it. When everything is empirical, testable, and verifiable there is not much wiggle-room to allow anyone to abuse that system. You seem to subscribe to the idea that because new evidence is presented all the time, then therefore science loses all credibility, but science does not function to deliver absolutes as you seem to think it does. A system that is able to accept new information through verification will always trump any system that refuses to acknowledge that new information even exists. If someone is often wrong but never admits it, that does not mean they've made fewer mistakes.
It's very common for laymen to throw around words like 'theory' in a dismissive tone as if to imply that such notions are nothing but off-the-cuff remarks postulated by someone without any real foundation or basis for doing so. The problem is that if you don't understand the basic fundamentals of science, what a scientific theory actually is, or how the science process works, then no one will ever convince you that it is necessary for the betterment of society and creating even more advanced fields of academia.
Joined: Apr 2006 Posts: 17293 Location: Ghosting around
I'm pretty sure that some of that seemingly useless research has brought us some great things. I wouldn't know any of them from the top of my head but yeah.
Besides that I don't care enough to truly give my two cents.
It's necessary for human survival and conform It's not necessary to have a happy life. It's not necessary to have faith in life.
It is necessary for survival. The scientific method is not limited to the confines of a laboratory. If someone never conducted experiments on fire and its benefits, I doubt very much you'd be cooking food today. If people never figured out what is edible and what can cause harm, you may not be too eager to eat a steak or die from eating pufferfish poison.
It's not necessary for everyone in order to have a "happy life" but it can make life a lot easier and perhaps less miserable than if we never did research on disease prevention and discovering cures for different illnesses. (Oh hey vaccine)
Faith in life...well, one might find it in science, some might not.
You guys are taking what BF said too literally. I think he is referring to those ridiculous scientific studies you often hear on the news.
Sure some scientific studies leads to dead ends, but many provide invaluable information or new methods that can be applied to real life. Some ventures lead to useful discoveries on accident (see x-ray for example).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Crumpets for Pres
