Modern Science = BS

and one poor estimate clearly devalues the rest of my post.  Way to ignore all substance for semantics as usual.

Another clue to the transparency of his quote:

He cannot stand!

You should explain your feelings about modern science if you ever get an X-ray at the dentist, or an MRI.

Nice presentation on why you should be a denialist. The reason why most people build upon scientific assumptions (which go through a lot more rigorous peer review and verification processes than any other major method) rather than perform every test of verification themselves is for the sake of progression. There is admittedly a basic requirement of faith for everything you take for fact, because even if you do perform such experimentation your own senses could be deceiving you from actually viewing reality, but without making any assumptions at all, you couldn't progress in life (And whether or not progression is beneficial is hardly up to debate, but think how you like). Most peoples who consider themselves "skeptical" are so much more drawn to scientific assumptions because a naturalistic epistemology holds so much more skepticism than any other major methodology and it shows so many more benefits that otherwise couldn't have happened (for example, it is unlikely that Alexander Fleming could have discovered the benefits of penicillin had he not taken for granted the peer-reviewed work of Antoine Bechamp, Rudolf Virchow and Louis Pasteur).

If one of your primary reasonings behind asserting that RET is unverified is because you do not trust the legitimacy of experiments to prove it as such (for example entering outer-space or crossing the "ice wall"), you may as well not trust anything written in any book that you have not had a first hand experience with (germ theory, theory of evolution), and you have never willfully gone to the doctor for anything because their workings are based upon un-self-verified assumptions. Except that you have trusted that what you were paying so much in advance for the doctor to do would in fact benefit you, haven't you Mr. Bishop?

As stated by Epic Skeptic, don't ignore the wholeness of a post to pull out a single flaw that is not very well interconnected with the conclusion to it.

Nice presentation on why you should be a denialist. The reason why most people build upon scientific assumptions (which go through a lot more rigorous peer review and verification processes than any other major method) rather than perform every test of verification themselves is for the sake of progression.

ts;dr

"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

When you choose to do nothing more than hypothesize and neglect to prove, it's called a pseudoscience.

Astronomers are little more than pseudo-scientists. Just some fellows who let their imaginations run wild, who are only pretending to conduct science.

Except that you have trusted that what you were paying so much in advance for the doctor to do would in fact benefit you, haven't you Mr. Bishop?

Assuming that a hypothesis is a fact, after its been rigorously peer reviewed and verified, is science.

Your assertion was not on astronomy alone, it was on the whole of modern science, and by only attacking this single strand of science, your attempting to avoid taking on much more validated sciences such as the ones used for modern medicine (expressed in my example).

How could Alexander Fleming, a biologist and pharmacologist, possibly have stumbled upon the uses of penicillin, without first assuming that germ-theory was true.

That's right Bishop, you have trusted people before, and in trusting anyone, your making the assumption that what they are saying is true, and your simply "Building one unproven hypothesis off of another." Why assume that what you read upon Stephen Hawkings was even said by him and not simply made up to spread the flat earth conspiracy? I mean, its just as valid as being skeptical on whether or not every space organization and person who claims to have explored Antarctica was actually telling the truth. Without having any trust in anything other than your own personal visual senses, you can only progress in horribly small increments.

Quote

How could Alexander Fleming, a biologist and pharmacologist, possibly have stumbled upon the uses of penicillin, without first assuming that germ-theory was true.

Flemming actually discovered Penicillin by accident. It's an invalid example. Read up on your history. He didn't use any particular method to discover it.

He left a pea-tree dish containing deadly bacteria next to an open window and some mold blew in and started to dissolve the bacteria. That's how it was "discovered".

Quote

Assuming that a hypothesis is a fact, after its been rigorously peer reviewed and verified, is science.

No. An unproven hypothesis cannot be considered as fact.

You kind of need to prove it before you can treat it as fact.

Quote

That's right Bishop, you have trusted people before, and in trusting anyone, your making the assumption that what they are saying is true, and your simply "Building one unproven hypothesis off of another." Why assume that what you read upon Stephen Hawkings was even said by him and not simply made up to spread the flat earth conspiracy? I mean, its just as valid as being skeptical on whether or not every space organization and person who claims to have explored Antarctica was actually telling the truth. Without having any trust in anything other than your own personal visual senses, you can only progress in horribly small increments.

What are you babbling about? It's not a matter of trusting anyone, or doubting someone's word. It's a matter of the search for truth.

Astronomers do not care about truth, so they operate by fantasy alone.

I've already touched on medicine earlier in the thread. Medicine is actually a Zetetic Science where the researcher puts the experiment first, conclusions after.

There aren't any hypothesis' when it comes to medicine. When you want results you start with the experiment stage first, conclusions after. That's how you find the truth. Samuel Birley Rowbotham knew this very well.

Modern Medicine is actually a Zetetic Science which Doctor Samuel Birley Rowbotham even helped to establish his very own self.

When the Black Death bubonic plague reached al-Andalus in the 14th century, Ibn Khatima hypothesized that infectious diseases are caused by "minute bodies" which enter the human body and cause disease. Another 14th century Andalusian physician, Ibn al-Khatib, wrote a treatise called On the Plague, in which he stated:[3]

"The existence of contagion is established by experience, investigation, the evidence of the senses and trustworthy reports. These facts constitute a sound argument. The fact of infection becomes clear to the investigator who notices how he who establishes contact with the afflicted gets the disease, whereas he who is not in contact remains safe, and how transmission is affected through garments, vessels and earrings."
Girolamo Fracastoro proposed in 1546 that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seed-like entities that could transmit infection by direct or indirect contact or even without contact over long distances. The Italian Agostino Bassi is often credited with having stated the germ theory of disease for the first time, based on his observations on the lethal and epidemic muscardine disease of silkworms. In 1835 he specifically blamed the deaths of the insects on a contagious, living agent, that was visible to the naked eye as powdery spore masses; this microscopic fungus was subsequently called Beauveria bassiana in his honor.

Microorganisms were first directly observed by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, who is considered the father of microbiology. Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian obstetrician working at Vienna's Allgemeines Krankenhaus in 1847, when he noticed the dramatically high incidence of death from puerperal fever among women who delivered at the hospital with the help of the doctors and medical students.

Progression off of an unproven hypothesis isn't "science". Building one unproven hypothesis off of another, as what Stephen Hawking does, isn't getting us anywhere closer to the truth.
(Kind of like the entirety of ENaG?)

See this quote from softpedia.com:

"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

That such is the sun's annual course is demonstrable by actual observation; but if it is asked why it traverses such a peculiarly concentric path, no practical answer can be given, and no theory or speculation can be tolerated. At no distant period perhaps, we may have collected sufficient matter-of-fact evidence to enable us to understand it; but until that occurs, the Zetetic process only permits us to say:--"The peculiar motion is visible to us, but, of the cause, at present we are ignorant."

Quote from: Epic Skeptic on December 13, 2009, 09:21:51 PM

and one poor estimate clearly devalues the rest of my post.  Way to ignore all substance for semantics as usual.

What substance did you provide? You just mentioned something about how modern science allows computers to exist.

Computers are also an ancient technology. The Greeks had a computer called the Antikythera, which they used for navigation.

In the Victorian Era a man named Charles Babbage built programmable computers which could perform IF, AND, OR operations.

From there it was just a matter of commercialization and miniaturization.

Hawking is the philosopher. Rowbotham is the scientist. And science always wins.

Scientists are expert bullshitters!

I got as far as these quotes by Tom

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2009, 09:12:20 PM

Hawking is the philosopher. Rowbotham is the scientist. And science always wins.

Scientists are expert bullshitters!

And decided that Tom, you are full of sh*t.

Modern Science is all BS, yet still, planes fly, boats sail, TV's and radio's work? Doctors and Scientists are curing cancers, and other previously untreatable disease.

But it's all BS?

Pull your head out your ar$e, nobody respects you for this nonsensical rambling, and we all know as well as you do that you don't believe it's true.

So to you, science has to have immediate, tangible results in order to be valid?  You have a VERY muddled view of how science works. Lets see your positions so far. All science is BS. Technology does not come from science, but "tinkering". Now there is a problem with theoretical physics because it has not lead to any inventions? mmmmmmm  It shows just how bankrupt your arguments are, since you have to use logic like that.

Quote from: EireEngineer on December 14, 2009, 05:46:44 PM

So to you, science has to have immediate, tangible results in order to be valid?  You have a VERY muddled view of how science works. Lets see your positions so far. All science is BS. Technology does not come from science, but "tinkering". Now there is a problem with theoretical physics because it has not lead to any inventions? mmmmmmm  It shows just how bankrupt your arguments are, since you have to use logic like that.

No, I'm just wondering why he posted those as evidence of hawking being more a scientist than tom said.

You somehow manage to over analyze and under think everything I say. It's an odd combo.

Quote from: Raist on December 14, 2009, 05:49:03 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on December 14, 2009, 05:46:44 PM

So to you, science has to have immediate, tangible results in order to be valid?  You have a VERY muddled view of how science works. Lets see your positions so far. All science is BS. Technology does not come from science, but "tinkering". Now there is a problem with theoretical physics because it has not lead to any inventions? mmmmmmm  It shows just how bankrupt your arguments are, since you have to use logic like that.

No, I'm just wondering why he posted those as evidence of hawking being more a scientist than tom said.

You somehow manage to over analyze and under think everything I say. It's an odd combo.

No, I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies in your thinking.  The theoretical physics that Hawking and others work on may seem to not yield any tangible benefits right now, but that is what was said of many other scientific endeavors at the same period in their histories.  Much of the modern science of physics is at a very nascent point in its development.  The fact that you lack the vision to see its possible applications does not make it any less valid a pursuit.

Quote

Nice presentation on why you should be a denialist. The reason why most people build upon scientific assumptions (which go through a lot more rigorous peer review and verification processes than any other major method) rather than perform every test of verification themselves is for the sake of progression.

ts;dr

Progression off of an unproven hypothesis isn't "science". Building one unproven hypothesis off of another, as what Stephen Hawking does, isn't getting us anywhere closer to the truth.

For example; in the Round Earth model stellar systems like galaxies aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies and super clusters has been a challenge to astronomers. Newtonian mechanics and "Gravity" predicts that the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.

See this quote from softpedia.com:

"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

Whenever a brick wall like this comes up astronomers invent a fictitious hypothesis to explain occurrences. In this case they invented "Dark Matter" to explain why the galaxies rotated as they did.

They placed one unproven hypothesis upon the next in an effort to keep the house of cards called Gravity from crashing to the ground. The necessity for truth is denied entirely.

Quote from: d00gz on December 14, 2009, 08:58:38 AM

I got as far as these quotes by Tom

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2009, 09:12:20 PM

Hawking is the philosopher. Rowbotham is the scientist. And science always wins.

Scientists are expert bullshitters!

And decided that Tom, you are full of sh*t.

Modern Science is all BS, yet still, planes fly, boats sail, TV's and radio's work? Doctors and Scientists are curing cancers, and other previously untreatable disease.

But it's all BS?

Pull your head out your ar$e, nobody respects you for this nonsensical rambling, and we all know as well as you do that you don't believe it's true.

So what ideas of hawking have led to planes flying? Or for that matter to any invention at all? Curing cancers is just using poisons that kill rapidly dividing cells, or other chemicals that target the specific mutation of the cancer. None of these things have anything to do with theoretical physics.

Modern Science is all BS, yet still, planes fly, boats sail, TV's and radio's work? Doctors and Scientists are curing cancers, and other previously untreatable disease.

"Science theory held us up for years. When we threw out the science, started from experiment to experience, then we invented the airplane."

So modern airplanes with jet engines and gps and air tight cabins were all invented by the Zetetic method?

Emmm... no.

Tom, you've already made it blatantly clear you have no real scientific background or experience, in the square wheel thread, which i notice you are ignoring, why don't you give up here as well.

You're wrong. You are. It happens, dust yourself off and move on why don't you.

Quote

Assuming that a hypothesis is a fact, after its been rigorously peer reviewed and verified, is science.

No. An unproven hypothesis cannot be considered as fact.

You kind of need to prove it before you can treat it as fact.