From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2013, 04:53 AM
Re: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
More "science equals religion" posts.

Can't troll with your own stuff now? Need a theocrats flawed argument?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 05:47 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(26-09-2013 02:12 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 11:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  Can't you see?!?!? God is perfect!

Checkmate, atheist science dude! Angry

Of course, If you question science you must believe in a god. :roll eyes:

Science like any other religion that came about by a bunch of guys forming consensus on what they think is true, and guess what, that is bullshit. Science as this abstract thing that has all the answers is a religion. Are there parts of this science religion that one can use in ones daily life to make it better? yes are there parts that can make life worse? yes just like any other bullshit religion.

I see that science is simply too difficult for you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-09-2013, 07:15 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
So wait, A bunch of guys coming up with ideas then agreeing on something is considered scientific, but a group of guys sitting around and coming up with ideas in another area is not considered scientific?

Philosophy has showed a long time ago that using logic when applied to things like science and religion can lead to false claims and complete and total bullshit.

Just because humans sit around and come up with nice stories about how things on earth happened and just because a group is convinced (peer review) that something is real or true.

THIS DOESN'T MAKE SOMETHING REAL OR TRUE WHETHER ITS CALLED RELIGION OR SCIENCE.

Philosophy shits on science and religion all day every day.

The idea that someone can make something up, then use logic (there are many faults in logic) to confirm what he has made up, then he goes and convinces others that what he has made up is true, the idea that science is based on the same method that spawned religion is completely hilarious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 08:34 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
Re: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
I feel like I have said this before to you but here goes...

A PhD literally means Doctor of Philosophy. One can attain a PhD in science. Meaning that one can study the philosophy of science. Meaning that philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive.

And trying to reduce science to one aspect of itself (peer review), is a strawman. Your conspiracies have always been centered around bullshit, but this is a blatant strawman.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
26-09-2013, 07:25 AM
Re: RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(26-09-2013 07:15 AM)I and I Wrote:  So wait, A bunch of guys coming up with ideas then agreeing on something is considered scientific, but a group of guys sitting around and coming up with ideas in another area is not considered scientific?

Philosophy has showed a long time ago that using logic when applied to things like science and religion can lead to false claims and complete and total bullshit.

Just because humans sit around and come up with nice stories about how things on earth happened and just because a group is convinced (peer review) that something is real or true.

THIS DOESN'T MAKE SOMETHING REAL OR TRUE WHETHER ITS CALLED RELIGION OR SCIENCE.

Philosophy shits on science and religion all day every day.

The idea that someone can make something up, then use logic (there are many faults in logic) to confirm what he has made up, then he goes and convinces others that what he has made up is true, the idea that science is based on the same method that spawned religion is completely hilarious.

You're a deranged individual when you think you're making some type of point.

All you've said is, yes, coming up with an idea and trying to consider if it's true is a process used in science/religion. That's what philosophy is, unless you have other grander definitions.

Philosophy is coming up with ideas and seeking to know if it's correct. Simply, the study/search of knowledge.

The fundamental flaw in what you don't grasp. In scientific fields, they don't proclaim things are definitively true in the way described. Religions will, and that's a key point of difference.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 08:30 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Build me a space station, I&I. Build me a computer. Build me an internet. Hell, build me a cabinet and I'll have some respect for the philosophy and ideas behind it.

Build me an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist who sits behind his computer, achieving nothing, swearing that his ideas are better than the ideas of competent people... and I'll be less impressed with the philosophy behind that.

Show me your ideas are useful and I'll respect them. I have little time for useless ideas unless those useless ideas have the prospect of leading to something useful, or at least are interesting their own right. The ideas behind your anti-science rhetoric are identical to those of a ranting theist grown fat and lazy on the produce of scientific minds but still claiming those ideas are inferior to their own stale, useless notions.

Build me a fucking weed whacker. Build me a house. Grow me a crop. Educate my children. Do something useful with your life. You keep coming back to this topic and spewing the same idiotic shit. "Science is just, like, opinion man. It can't achieve anything. Let me communicate this idea to you instantly using science. That will show I'm right". "Science is just ideas. It's not like scientists get together and test ideas or anything, you know... to see which ones are wrong and which are right.". "Science is just a bunch of old guys getting together and agreeing with each other. It's not like there's an entire engineering profession based on the findings of that bunch of old mean that is capable of putting robots on other planets or anything.". "See, I'm much smarter than those guys because I can see that there is no reason to do or ever to have done any science - and they can't see that. So yeah. I'm totally smarter than those idiots.". "Scientists are pieces of shit because they don't follow my one true religion of Jew hating, Stalin worship, and libertarianism that completely make sense together".

People who have real ideas are able to make things happen in the real world using those ideas. What have you made happen? What achievements can you show me that makes it tenable to even seriously consider your ideas?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
26-09-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(26-09-2013 07:25 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 07:15 AM)I and I Wrote:  So wait, A bunch of guys coming up with ideas then agreeing on something is considered scientific, but a group of guys sitting around and coming up with ideas in another area is not considered scientific?

Philosophy has showed a long time ago that using logic when applied to things like science and religion can lead to false claims and complete and total bullshit.

Just because humans sit around and come up with nice stories about how things on earth happened and just because a group is convinced (peer review) that something is real or true.

THIS DOESN'T MAKE SOMETHING REAL OR TRUE WHETHER ITS CALLED RELIGION OR SCIENCE.

Philosophy shits on science and religion all day every day.

The idea that someone can make something up, then use logic (there are many faults in logic) to confirm what he has made up, then he goes and convinces others that what he has made up is true, the idea that science is based on the same method that spawned religion is completely hilarious.

You're a deranged individual when you think you're making some type of point.

All you've said is, yes, coming up with an idea and trying to consider if it's true is a process used in science/religion. That's what philosophy is, unless you have other grander definitions.

Philosophy is coming up with ideas and seeking to know if it's correct. Simply, the study/search of knowledge.

The fundamental flaw in what you don't grasp. In scientific fields, they don't proclaim things are definitively true in the way described. Religions will, and that's a key point of difference.

No philosopher pretends or claims to know what is true. Philosophy questions everything, even itself.

The method of making a hypothesis to getting a consensus is the same method that religious people use. This shows that philosophy is correct in stating that induction and deduction are flawed and can lead to flawed results, so a group of people agreeing on an outcome of induction or deduction doesn't validate the results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 09:27 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
You don't think scientists test and constantly question themselves and their ideas so as to demonstrate plausibility of an idea?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
26-09-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(26-09-2013 09:17 AM)I and I Wrote:  No philosopher pretends or claims to know what is true. Philosophy questions everything, even itself.

The method of making a hypothesis to getting a consensus is the same method that religious people use. This shows that philosophy is correct in stating that induction and deduction are flawed and can lead to flawed results, so a group of people agreeing on an outcome of induction or deduction doesn't validate the results.

Let us grant your deranged assumption that science is a scam (?). It isn't really coherent, so I'm just guessing as to what exactly you mean.

Do you, or do you not, regularly partake of its many outputs?

You have yet to address your implicit and all-encompassing acceptance of its results. If "science" is a conspiracy then you're part of it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 10:40 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(11-09-2013 12:44 AM)I and I Wrote:  Drinking Beverage

How does one come to a conclusion as to what hypothesis to make or not make? Is it influenced by previous ideologies, notions, beliefs, cultural upbringing?

There are clear definitions as to what this word and most scientific precepts mean...

They have been around a long time.

This is one way to look at it:

http://www.oakton.edu/user/4/billtong/ea...method.htm


Of course if you are not using science this may not be valid but I would argue that if you cannot test what you hypothesize it is not a hypothesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: