Science debunked

[Rambozo]

Science is simply a system for gaining knowledge about the material world. Some take the premise that the material world is all that exists, and this premise simply has to be taken on faith or by circular reasoning.

Most people who believe in science only believe it because they have been indoctrinated or told that such and such a thing is a scientific fact. They have not gathered the evidence and formulated the theories themselves. They are just repeating such and such a thing to be "true" because of what they have been taught in school, because a scientist "says so", and so on.

Just as how, if they had been born in the middle ages, they would be repeating by rote that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught, and what people who were considered "experts" (e.x. church officials) said was true.

 

[Daisy]

Science is simply a system for gaining knowledge about the material world. Some take the premise that the material world is all that exists, and this premise simply has to be taken on faith or by circular reasoning.

Most people who believe in science only believe it because they have been indoctrinated or told that such and such a thing is a scientific fact. They have not gathered the evidence and formulated the theories themselves. They are just repeating such and such a thing to be "true" because of what they have been taught in school, because a scientist "says so", and so on.

Just as how, if they had been born in the middle ages, they would be repeating by rote that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught, and what people who were considered "experts" (e.x. church officials) said was true.

OR they could've just read the Bible...the Bible is not a science book but it is accurate when it mentions matters of science...

The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.

The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.

The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.

Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.

The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.

Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/502014236

 

[Gozaburo]

Science is simply a system for gaining knowledge about the material world. Some take the premise that the material world is all that exists, and this premise simply has to be taken on faith or by circular reasoning.

A lazy way of articulating it but yes, this seems true.

Most people who believe in science only believe it because they have been indoctrinated or told that such and such a thing is a scientific fact. They have not gathered the evidence and formulated the theories themselves. They are just repeating such and such a thing to be "true" because of what they have been taught in school, because a scientist "says so", and so on.

Kind of true... in a strict sense. I think your general point is that most people who claim to be brute empiricists are in-fact not brute empiricists because rigorously empirically testing every claim you believe to be a truth is obviously not realistic.

Just as how, if they had been born in the middle ages, they would be repeating by rote that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught, and what people who were considered "experts" (e.x. church officials) said was true.

I don't know if you're talking about a particular scientific conclusion, but obviously this doesn't "debunk science". The scientific method still seems to be the most practical for identifying truth (insofar as truth is even obtainable from an epistemic perspective) in the material world. The scientific method is obviously not going to tell you anything about metaphysics or epistemology though. Empiricism itself relies heavily on inductive reasoning but empiricism cannot be used to demonstrate inductive reasoning is possible as Hume famously pointed out.

 

[Loulit01]

 

[Grand Mal]

Science is simply a system for gaining knowledge about the material world. Some take the premise that the material world is all that exists, and this premise simply has to be taken on faith or by circular reasoning.

Most people who believe in science only believe it because they have been indoctrinated or told that such and such a thing is a scientific fact. They have not gathered the evidence and formulated the theories themselves. They are just repeating such and such a thing to be "true" because of what they have been taught in school, because a scientist "says so", and so on.

Just as how, if they had been born in the middle ages, they would be repeating by rote that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught, and what people who were considered "experts" (e.x. church officials) said was true.

Did God stop the rotation of the Earth to give Joshua enough daylight to annihilate Jericho?
Did God conjure up enough water to flood the whole world and then make it disappear again?
Betcha you side with science on those.
Or, why do whales have lungs, and fingers encased in flippers? Intelligent design or evolution?

 

[Rambozo]

Did God stop the rotation of the Earth to give Joshua enough daylight to annihilate Jericho?
Did God conjure up enough water to flood the whole world and then make it disappear again?
Betcha you side with science on those.
Or, why do whales have lungs, and fingers encased in flippers? Intelligent design or evolution?

It's a moot point, because evolution does not disprove the existence of a God. Maybe some wish that it did, though.

One could, for example, view the universe as having been created by God, and evolution simply one of its many mechanisms. As much as any other mechanism, such as the rotation of the planets.

 

[KingLeo]

Waiting to see anything in particular about science that you think has been debunked.

 

[Grand Mal]

It's a moot point, because evolution does not disprove the existence of a God. Maybe some wish that it did, though.

So the question of evolution may be moot but science makes much of the Bible impossible.

One could, for example, view the universe as having been created by God, and evolution simply one of its many mechanisms. As much as any other mechanism, such as the rotation of the planets.

One could indeed, and one would have to discount much of Christianity and much of religion generally.
One could also say that every culture has its creation myth that accounts for things they observe and can't explain, and the Big Bang Theory is science's creation myth.

 

[lwf]

Science is simply a system for gaining knowledge about the material world. Some take the premise that the material world is all that exists, and this premise simply has to be taken on faith or by circular reasoning.

Most people who believe in science only believe it because they have been indoctrinated or told that such and such a thing is a scientific fact. They have not gathered the evidence and formulated the theories themselves. They are just repeating such and such a thing to be "true" because of what they have been taught in school, because a scientist "says so", and so on.

Just as how, if they had been born in the middle ages, they would be repeating by rote that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught, and what people who were considered "experts" (e.x. church officials) said was true.

Gathering evidence, formulating theories, and testing those theories is what science is. It sounds like rather than "debunking" science you are advocating that people should use the scientific method to question the things they have been told to believe. That would apply to what we have been told by scientific authorities just as much as it would apply to what we have been told by religious authorities.

 

[dmpi]

'science' is a methodology to derive facts from observations. The core principle involves experimentation. These experiments need to be repeatable. You don't have to take others word for it, you can repeat the experiment yourself. So when a scientist presents a finding, you can assume it's really true. Where we get into trouble is when we expand experimentation results (often from many experiments) into a bigger truth or conclusion using faulty or defective logic.

 

[BabaVoss]

Science is simply a system for gaining knowledge about the material world. Some take the premise that the material world is all that exists, and this premise simply has to be taken on faith or by circular reasoning.

Anything outside of our 'material' universe is, by definition, supernatural.
Thus, outside the realm of science.
Your idea is false - science describes no such premise.
Science never says "the material world is all that exists".
What it does say is "here is what we know about the material world"
Science says exactly nothing about anything supernatural, either for or con.

Most people who believe in science only believe it because they have been indoctrinated or told that such and such a thing is a scientific fact.

Science and scientific facts exist whether anyone believes in them or not.

They have not gathered the evidence and formulated the theories themselves. They are just repeating such and such a thing to be "true" because of what they have been taught in school, because a scientist "says so", and so on.

Just as how, if they had been born in the middle ages, they would be repeating by rote that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught, and what people who were considered "experts" (e.x. church officials) said was true.

This does not in any way "debunk science".
In fact, you have described the beauty of science; it constantly revises its knowledge, based on new discovery and new information.
We LEARN.

Why the anti-science rant? What point are you trying to make?

.

 

[Visbek]

Science is simply a system for gaining knowledge about the material world. Some take the premise that the material world is all that exists, and this premise simply has to be taken on faith or by circular reasoning.

What the f**k?

Meaning what, I'm required to replicate every single experiment ever conducted in order to accept the current scientific consensus?

Does every doctor need to test every single drug using a randomized controlled trial before prescribing it?

Should every astronaut spend 50 years learning all of the engineering, physics, chemistry and astronomy that's required in order to send a human into space?

If I'm going to assert claims about climate change, do I need to redo every single experiment that goes into the current consensus view? What am I supposed to do, build my own temperature testing stations and set them up around the planet? Dot the ocean with temperature-measuring buoys? Launch my own satellites?

The computer upon which you're typing this nonsense was designed by hundreds of thousands of people, all with specialized knowledge, all contributing pieces here and there -- and it was assembled by people and robots who don't understand any of that. And you, of course, probably know nothing about assembly language, TCP/IP stacks, battery constructions....

Most people who believe in science only believe it because they have been indoctrinated or told that such and such a thing is a scientific fact.

They have not gathered the evidence and formulated the theories themselves.

Yes, that's because other people already did the work. There are rigorous procedures followed by hundreds of thousands of intelligent and highly trained people over centuries who busted their asses, and checked each others' work, and used that knowledge to build devices and medicines that actually work, for a few centuries now.

Just as how, if they had been born in the middle ages, they would be repeating by rote that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught, and what people who were considered "experts" (e.x. church officials) said was true.

Egads, what a gigantic pile of bullshit.

First of all, Europeans figured out that the earth was a sphere in the 3rd Century BC. The allegations that "everyone though the world was flat" is a myth, most likely an anti-Catholic slur perpetuated by hostile Protestants.

Next, yes Medieval scholars relied on the experts -- but most of those experts were ancient Greeks and Romans (such as Galen or Aristotle), who were seen as authorities. In fact, it was those who pursued a more modern concept of science who challenged those ancient authorities, and started conducting experiments and looking at empirical evidence.

And as already pointed out above:
- Your demand for individual verification is absurd.
- You're overlooking the products of those empirical successes, even as you use them to launch your inane anti-science screed.

Hard pass on the nonsense, thanks for trying.

 

[Visbek]

It's a moot point, because evolution does not disprove the existence of a God.

Good luck telling that to the Christians who have spent ~150 years attacking evolution.

Oh, and as your own post makes clear: Evolution definitely disproves the literal interpretation of Christian cosmology as described in Genesis. In addition, what you're missing is that it renders the Big Sky Daddy completely moot. Who needs an omnipotent deity to create life, when all you need are a bunch of amino acids and a few billion years?

 

[soylentgreen]

Science is simply a system for gaining knowledge about the material world. Some take the premise that the material world is all that exists, and this premise simply has to be taken on faith or by circular reasoning.

Most people who believe in science only believe it because they have been indoctrinated or told that such and such a thing is a scientific fact. They have not gathered the evidence and formulated the theories themselves. They are just repeating such and such a thing to be "true" because of what they have been taught in school, because a scientist "says so", and so on.

Just as how, if they had been born in the middle ages, they would be repeating by rote that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught, and what people who were considered "experts" (e.x. church officials) said was true.

So you start with science is a system for gaining knowledge. And end with science is a belief system based on indoctrination. Either it is a system or it is indoctrination. not both.

 

[ataraxia]

Science is simply a system for gaining knowledge about the material world. Some take the premise that the material world is all that exists, and this premise simply has to be taken on faith or by circular reasoning.

Most people who believe in science only believe it because they have been indoctrinated or told that such and such a thing is a scientific fact. They have not gathered the evidence and formulated the theories themselves. They are just repeating such and such a thing to be "true" because of what they have been taught in school, because a scientist "says so", and so on.

Just as how, if they had been born in the middle ages, they would be repeating by rote that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught, and what people who were considered "experts" (e.x. church officials) said was true.

Science is just the best models that we can come up with to make sense of our latest observations and experiments. It’s true that it’s not ultimate truth.

What’s important about science is not its latest results: those are always changing and being revised. What’s important about it is the process and the method. It has proven to be extraordinarily fruitful.

 

[Rambozo]

So you start with science is a system for gaining knowledge. And end with science is a belief system based on indoctrination. Either it is a system or it is indoctrination. not both.

No, I'm saying that the average person isn't a scientist, so their belief in scientific truths isn't based on having independently discovered them, such as having independently discovered the theory of gravity. It's based on rote instruction and indoctrination, or believing that gravity is true merely because a teacher or scientist said so. That's not science, that's simply having faith that something is true because that's what one was taught to believe is true growing up.

Most of those people, if they'd been born in the Middle Ages, would be believing that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught in school, or by people who were considered "experts" in that day and age, such as church officials.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, I'm saying that the average person isn't a scientist, so their belief in scientific truths isn't based on having independently discovered them, such as having independently discovered the theory of gravity. It's based on rote instruction and indoctrination, or believing that gravity is true merely because a teacher or scientist said so. That's not science, that's simply having faith that something is true because that's what one was taught to believe is true growing up.

Most of those people, if they'd been born in the Middle Ages, would be believing that the earth is the center of the universe, because that's what they would have been taught in school, or by people who were considered "experts" in that day and age, such as church officials.

Have you ever been to america. If not then by your argument you can only assume america exists based on nothing more than rote learning and indoctrination. I have never been to the netherlands and just because you say you come from there according to you is no reason for me to believe the netherlands actually exist. Ever been raped, if not then according to your argument rape is just an assumption rather than something that actually happens. Despite your saying that science is a system, which it is, you seem not to understand what that system is.

Most people in the middle ages did not go to a school. Nor is science simply just someone telling us something and we just accepting it without question. The basis of science is to question what you do not know not just accept what people tell you.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

"I don't believe in germs because I can't see them."

---Pete Hegseth ---- also known as "your role model"

 

[Noodlegawd]

the Bible is ... accurate when it mentions matters of science...

No it's not.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Some take the premise that the material world is all that exists, and this premise simply has to be taken on faith or by circular reasoning.

No, they take the premise that you should not claim something exists without having evidence for it.

And so far, the material world is the only thing we have evidence for.

 

[Rambozo]

No, they take the premise that you should not claim something exists without having evidence for it.

And so far, the material world is the only thing we have evidence for.

Wrong. I've already proved materialism to be false.

And as far as evidence goes, I'll continue to provide it.

MSN

 

[Noodlegawd]

Wrong. I've already proved materialism to be false.

No you haven't.

 

[Rambozo]

No you haven't.

Materialism is simply based on accepting the presumption on faith that the material world is all that exists, and reinforcing that belief through circular reasoning.

It's a philosophy as old as Epicurus, and just as full of holes today as it was then. I consider it a belief for the ignorant and intellectually lazy, and nothing more.

 

[Gozaburo]

No, they take the premise that you should not claim something exists without having evidence for it.

And so far, the material world is the only thing we have evidence for.

The problem is that the scientific method itself relies on stuff like inductive reasoning which itself cannot be proven empirically. Brute materialism is obviously not true. It's not consistent even within its own worldivew.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Materialism is simply based on accepting the presumption on faith that the material world is all that exists, and reinforcing that belief through circular reasoning.

Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with science.

The problem is that the scientific method itself relies on stuff like inductive reasoning which itself cannot be proven empirically.

The results of inductive reason, practically by definition, are accepted as not being proven empirically. Rather, it is based on probability, and it happens to work amazingly well for purposes of understanding the real world. Especially compared to all other available alternatives.

Brute materialism

I don't think that's an actual thing.

is obviously not true.

How could you possibly know that?