Ebionite
Well-Known Member
I don't define it. I would describe it as the construct in which we experience our individual nature.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is "Bad" Science?
- Thread starter dybmh
- Start date
PureX
Veteran Member
Only in the minds of the scientism crowd. Within the actual practice of science, the data derived by testing one hypothesis simply gets used to generate another, or to clarify the first, to be tested further. Scientists don't draw conclusions because conclusions are a locked in bias. And the whole point of engagining in the practice of science it to try and avoid being locked into a bias.
Of course they are. It's why we call them conclusions as opposed to ongoing theories, or hypotheses. And the scientism crowd constantly posses them exactly as conclusions. Not as theories or hypotheses. Because the real addiction fueling the scientism cult is the delusion of their own absolute righteousness. They have turned bad science and bad philosophy into the godless oracle that "proves" they are right and that anyone that disagrees with them is wrong.
Too bad the scientism crowd completely disregards this at every turn. In fact, it's what I posted, and here you are fighting with me about it. Why? Because I dare to point out that science does not dictate reality. Nor does it give the scientism cult the right or ability to presume to dictate reality to anyone else ... the very presumption that they are so addicted to maintaining.
Too bad you are so unable to see that this was a tribal political phenomena trumped up by wealthy corporate sponsored "think tanks" being couched in the ignorance of religiosity that you, yourself, constantly promote as real religion.
Last edited:
So "real" means anything you'd like it to mean at the time.
I'm sure you find that also very convenient, just like your no-definition of "truth".
Yeah, whatever.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
People interpret the language for themselves, and interpretations vary. The map (the interpretation) is not the terrain (the reality).
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
I'm sure that other data says that it was actually people being impaled by invisible unicorns.
I like to understand what it is I understand and the sense in which I understand it.
For that I need to clarify for myself notions like 'truth' and 'reality'.
But ─ correct me if I'm wrong ─ supernaturalists find that notions like objectivity, examinable evidence, objective tests for truth, simply get in the way, form a barrier to what supernaturalists desire.
This is just wrong. Scientists are REQUIRED to draw conclusions from their studies, and these conclusions are always amenable to modifications based on future discoveries. The idea that scientific conclusions do not exist and that conclusions by definition are unmodifiable is nonsense.
Almost every paper in science is required to have a last subsection called "Conclusions". Here is a free to view example from chemistry. See Section 5. Conclusions simply means what are the main results and interpretations obtained from that specific investigation. Anybody who has ever read a scientific paper will know this.
Water as the reaction medium in organic chemistry: from our worst enemy to our best friend - Chemical Science (RSC Publishing) DOI:10.1039/D0SC06000C
Language can be very accurate and precise, and when people communicate there is a matter of being comprehensible and comprehending. We see theists often dislike the hard reality of facts and science and distort facts and truth in a way that vrevets them from comprehending. Look at @PureX and his contempt for science, and how that contempt reveals distorted beliefs and claims about science and reality. That is learned behavior, and deliberate. It is rooted in social/cultural traditions that promote religious ideas, including the idea that scienceis anti-religion.
Humans are capable of rejecting religious ideas, or accepting certain religious ideas but also acceping results in science. When believers are so deep in their illusions and have disdain and contempt for science it is easy to spot. You falling back on personal interpretations of words and avoiding how humans can acknowledge facts illustrates a mind that prefers an illusion and rejects reality.
No, a portrait by an artist is an interpretation. A drawing of terrain is a representation of reality that is real and accurate itself. A map that has inaccuracies or added elements that don't exist is worthless. This example is a good analogy, as you use your mind to "interpret" facts and reality in a way that is distorted, and aims to reinforce false beliefs that you want to be true and valid. This is the mind trap that many theists learn and mimic, and can't reconcile how it sabotages their understanding of reality.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Any clue what the 19 might mean? obviously not
gnostic
The Lost One
Example of bad science:
Geocentric planetary model. Since ancient Babylonian and ancient Egyptian of the Bronze Age, stargazers believed that the Earth was fixed, stationary, where the sun and planets moved across the sky. This was when they believed the Earth was flat too.
For the Egyptians, the Sun, was actually Ra’s solar boat, sailing across the sky, and Thoth on his lunar boat sailing across the night sky.
By the Iron Age, these were chariots instead of boats…pulled by flying horses, or in the Hellenistic Jewish folklore angels, not flying horse.
These were obviously myths, not science.
It was the 2nd century CE, Greek geographer & astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy, who wrote the scientific treatise on the geocentric model, the Almagest, which were accepted by most astronomers until Nicklaus Copernicus & Galileo Galilei with the revised heliocentric model.
Actually, the first astronomer to propose the heliocentric model, was by Aristarchus of Samos, from the mid-3rd century BCE. His work hasn’t survive, but it was summarised by the famous Syracusan inventor & engineer, Archimedes, in his The Sand Reckoner.
Aristarchus’ heliocentric model was unpopular, where many agree with Ptolemy’s geocentric model. Ptolemy’s model was bad science.
Geocentric planetary model. Since ancient Babylonian and ancient Egyptian of the Bronze Age, stargazers believed that the Earth was fixed, stationary, where the sun and planets moved across the sky. This was when they believed the Earth was flat too.
For the Egyptians, the Sun, was actually Ra’s solar boat, sailing across the sky, and Thoth on his lunar boat sailing across the night sky.
By the Iron Age, these were chariots instead of boats…pulled by flying horses, or in the Hellenistic Jewish folklore angels, not flying horse.
These were obviously myths, not science.
It was the 2nd century CE, Greek geographer & astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy, who wrote the scientific treatise on the geocentric model, the Almagest, which were accepted by most astronomers until Nicklaus Copernicus & Galileo Galilei with the revised heliocentric model.
Actually, the first astronomer to propose the heliocentric model, was by Aristarchus of Samos, from the mid-3rd century BCE. His work hasn’t survive, but it was summarised by the famous Syracusan inventor & engineer, Archimedes, in his The Sand Reckoner.
Aristarchus’ heliocentric model was unpopular, where many agree with Ptolemy’s geocentric model. Ptolemy’s model was bad science.
PureX
Veteran Member
Then they aren't conclusions, are they. They are theories. They are hypotheses. They are speculative presumptions intended to be tested to see if they stand up to the scrutiny of physical interaction.
They are NOT concluded truths about the nature of realty.
The problem here is poor verbal articulation. The word "conclusion" specifically implies NO FURTHER QUESTIONING. And that is exactly antithetical to the ideal if scientific inquiry.
So the real question then, is why are you fighting to maintain and defend the WRONG term?
A hundred idiots misusing a term is still a hundred idiots misusing the term. And you defending them misusing the term is still you defending the misuse of the term. There are no conclusions in science. It's the most basic principal in science. It's only the scientism cult that thinks science is also philosophy that thinks science is seeking any truth conclusions. Scientists may misuse the term, but they understand that they don't mean to imply any truth claims. Or draw any true conclusions from the data they acquire.
It's only the scientism fools that think that. And spew that nonsense habitually. And then fight to defend it.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
You can attempt to have your own vocabulary but it makes communication with others difficult at best.
You are not really discussing the topic but where your god fits into it, which in the case of methodological naturalism or science as practiced it does not.
gnostic
The Lost One
Example of bad science:
Geocentric planetary model. Since ancient Babylonian and ancient Egyptian of the Bronze Age, stargazers believed that the Earth was fixed, stationary, where the sun and planets moved across the sky. This was when they believed the Earth was flat too.
For the Egyptians, the Sun, was actually Ra’s solar boat, sailing across the sky, and Thoth on his lunar boat sailing across the night sky.
It was the 2nd century CE, Greek geographer & astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy, who wrote the scientific treatise on the geocentric model, the Almagest, which were accepted by most astronomers until Nicklaus Copernicus & Galileo Galilei challenged the model with the revised heliocentric model.
Actually, the first astronomer to propose the heliocentric model, was by Aristarchus of Samos, from the mid-3rd century BCE. His work hasn’t survive, but it was summarised by the famous Syracusan inventor & engineer, Archimedes, in his The Sand Reckoner.
Aristarchus’ heliocentric model was unpopular, where many agree with Ptolemy’s geocentric model. Ptolemy’s model was bad science.
Geocentric planetary model. Since ancient Babylonian and ancient Egyptian of the Bronze Age, stargazers believed that the Earth was fixed, stationary, where the sun and planets moved across the sky. This was when they believed the Earth was flat too.
For the Egyptians, the Sun, was actually Ra’s solar boat, sailing across the sky, and Thoth on his lunar boat sailing across the night sky.
It was the 2nd century CE, Greek geographer & astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy, who wrote the scientific treatise on the geocentric model, the Almagest, which were accepted by most astronomers until Nicklaus Copernicus & Galileo Galilei challenged the model with the revised heliocentric model.
Actually, the first astronomer to propose the heliocentric model, was by Aristarchus of Samos, from the mid-3rd century BCE. His work hasn’t survive, but it was summarised by the famous Syracusan inventor & engineer, Archimedes, in his The Sand Reckoner.
Aristarchus’ heliocentric model was unpopular, where many agree with Ptolemy’s geocentric model. Ptolemy’s model was bad science.
Covid-19 nor a model (?) of the Covid-19 virus was isolated in 1965. This is a "BAD SCIENCE" lie regardless of how you word it. What was isolated was a common cold not closely genetically related to the Covid-19 virus. You cannot make a Corona-19 virus out of the Common Cold virus. The Covid-19 virus is closely related to the Corona viruses found in the animals in Southern China,
Lier lier pants on fire,
Science does not consider the results of research "concluded truths" nor speculative assumptions"
Your intentional ignorance of science and religious agenda are more than apparent.
Your playing word games and "splitting frog hairs" with the word conclusion. It is accepted in science that the conclusions of specific research projects involving hypothesis or theories are not final absolute conclusions'
You are chasing smelly "Red Herrings." based on an anti science agenda. I will call this "manure pounding" to justify an argument that has no basis in fact.
Red herring - Wikipedia
The problem is your "smelly red herring."
Emotional stoic meaningless rhetoric based on an anti-science agenda.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Everyone knows that a "conclusion" is FINAL. No more revisions. No more variations. No other possible outcomes. Everyone knows this. And yet here you are just blatantly ignoring the obvious because you can't accept the possibility of being wrong when it comes to your sacred cow; mythical 'scientism'.
But science never becomes "final". It never rejects the significant possibility of variation or unforeseen outcome. It never proclaims a "conclusion" regardless of how many scientists did how many experiments and misused that term when they meant, 'a viable theory or a hypothesis'.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Of course they don't. But the scientism crowd does.
Of course they do. But they call them "theories" and "hypotheses", instead, because real scientists are trying to avoid making presumptions.
You're the only one even mentioning religion. And you're the one that can't understand the difference between science and scientism.
There's no splitting hairs to it. A "conclusion" is final. And in science nothing is ever final. So it's a misuse of that term plain and simple. The real question is why you can't just acknowledge the obvious?
Then why do they call it a conclusion? Hint: because it's just the conclusion of that specific, isolated, experimental process. It's not a conclusion about the true nature of reality. Which is how the scientism crowd interprets it.
You are the great wise person telling scientists how to use a term now? Here is the famous scientific method
Scientific method - Wikipedia
See the "report conclusions" section? I am sorry, but the word does not mean what you want it to mean. See the meanings in Merriam Webster. The underlined ones are how it's used in science, and none of them mean that the "conclusion" is set in stone impervious to modification based on further discoveries.
Definition of CONCLUSION
1
a
: a reasoned judgment : INFERENCE
The obvious conclusion is that she was negligent.
b
: the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises
especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism
2
: the last part of something
The team was exhausted at the conclusion of the game.
: such as
a
: RESULT, OUTCOME
The peace talks came to a successful conclusion.
b
conclusions plural : trial of strength or skill
—used in the phrase try conclusions
c
: a final summation
the counsel's conclusion to the jury
d
: the final decision in a law case
e
: the final part of a pleading in law
PureX
Veteran Member
It was a stupid choice of words. And it's still a stupid choice of words. They are simply reporting the "RESULTS" of the experiment, they are not drawing any "conclusions"; not if they are practicing science, and not playing at scientism.
"Question" was also a stupid choice of words in this diagram when what one is seeking are the unknown causes behind the current observations. "Questions" and "conclusions" belong in the area of philosophy, not science. In the practice of science it's all about causes and results. Not questions and conclusions.