OK, what's next?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave M
  • Start date Start date
CrazyNutz said:
Science let you motherfuckers live past 40, and own a god damn digital device that connects to a worldwide computer network to try and debunk science.

Science says, you're welcome :hys:
Click to expand...

Saint Anthony the Great lived until he was 105 before they called it "science".

So an Australian Abo swinging his noisemaker or a Bantu warrior beating a conga is also science since it can be used to communicate the same way a cell phone can. But you sound like a dickweed when you start saying stuff like that about the most mundane things. A total dickweed.
 
Aynirar27 said:
Psychology is one science I don’t read up in much so I have no answer for that one
Click to expand...
I like science more than you would expect. But I hate psychology. Pure quackery whose only solution is drugs, mashing your brain with a pointed object, and shocking your brain cells dead.
 
denialist said:
And PS, the only living past 40 because of "science" is total BS.
Click to expand...

It's not bullshit. Although people could, and did live past 40, many people died before that age due to disease, and other medical emergencies that modern hospitals are equipped to deal with. Science say's your welcome :ROFLMAO:
 
Krull said:
What happens when scientists say something contrary to scientists?
Click to expand...
We demean them because you don't question science unless you are a scientist questioning science to confirm what "science" has already stated. Trust the science.
 
CrazyNutz said:
Science let you motherfuckers live past 40, and own a god damn digital device that connects to a worldwide computer network to try and debunk science.

Science says, you're welcome :hys:
Click to expand...
How did Julius Caesar live past 40?
 
CrazyNutz said:
They do, and the general consensus wins.
Click to expand...
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

-Michael Crichton
 
Krull said:
What happens when scientists say something contrary to scientists?
Click to expand...

That’s why the scientific method exists.


Long held “institutionalized” ideas of the expansion of the universe have been absolutely turned on their head lately.

Science creates technology, technology scrutinizes science.
 
denialist said:
Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,
Click to expand...

False. Scientific studies, and papers are peer reviewed.

One guy can investigate, but many peers in the field must scrutinize his findings, and agree or disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top