The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: War on Science  (Read 13108 times)

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #25 on: 07/10/2007 09:18:43 »
Quote
And that is supposed to prove what?
From current evolutionary point of view nothing.:-))
Thats what the replication theory says.
There is no purpose which can be known from the troll
of species.
Anways the thread tries to differentiate between religion and science. Homosexuality which is for pleasure is opposed by Religion and Modern governments are finding it hard to believe the science. There are no new findings but only theories. Science is appearing to become like religion.


=======================================

Which governments would these be? Please list them or post a link to your source. Also, check how much money governments spend on science compared to their spending on religion.

And science becoming like a religion? Don't be silly. As I have already said - and so have others replying to you here - science tries to produce theories with veriable predictions. There is nothing about religion that can be verified.

No new discoveries? I thought you yourself posted here about a new discovery - the potential genetic trigger! Actually, maybe you're right. There have not been any new "discoveries", merely new evidence that existing theories are either correct or not. When the LHC at CERN gets up to full power, we may find particles that have been predicted but not yet seen. Some theories will survive the LHC experiments, others will fall by the wayside. That is how science works.

Quote
Quote
What that says to me, as a psychologist, is that the part of her brain that registers fear was not working. That may be the result of brain damage or faulty genes. How does that relate to a "war on science" or dreams bringing pleasure?

Indeed fear is a chemical state as well. But I dont think one learn to induce courage... the brain has high  plasticity... only a Natural process can remove fear or produce fear in a sustainable way.
Same applies to pleasure..
==================================

That depends on how you would define "natural process". Therapy can remove fears. Is therapy a natural process?

Quote
Quote
And in what way is the example you gave an experiment? What did the experiment involve? What was their methodology? Who conducted it? Where? When? What hypothesis were they trying to prove? Did they succeed?
This experiment was performed in US by renowned neurologists.The purpose was to demonstrate plasticity of brain. But they found a contradiction.
This women managed to develop courage without any external means.
================================

Quote
Was it the researchers who stopped her brain registering fear? I can't believe that to be the case as it would fly in the face of every ethic known to research.
No researchers were able to recreate in other beings.
It was a natural state .. and in principle brain has tremendous amount of plasticity... If left brain stops functioning the right brain learns the functions of left.

======================================

You still haven't said what the experiment actually was. Please give a citation or link.

Quote
Quote
And as for the link in your subsequent post, can you explain the relevance to this thread of a church objecting to a gay funeral?
We see a clear case of violation of human rights.
The gay died with a desire to promote gayism ... but the relgious people did not accept the funeral.

=====================================


But what the hell has that got to do with science?

Quote
We need to collect more evidence in favour of Evolution towards sustainable pleasure.
The latest which apparently being asked in the evolutionary circle is:
Why different rates of evolution?
Why it took so much time to evolve?
Both questions are not supported by evidence.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Micro-evolution has been observed in laboratory conditions. However, I have not yet seen 1 single shred of evidence of evolution towards sustainable pleasure. In fact, I would say the opposite is the case. If evolution is driven by the need for sustainable pleasure, how do you explain prey animals? Do you think that living in constant fear of being eaten is a step towards sustainable pleasure?

DIfferent rates of evolution? Simple. If the niche an organism fills disappears then the organism will need to evolve rapidly or it will become extinct. If the organism is comfortable in its environment, has plenty of food etc, then there is no need for urgent evolution. Plus, of course, evolution is a generational thing. The faster an organism reproduces, the more chance there is for rapid evolution.

So, who is it that is asking these questions? I read a lot of science magazines, I visit a lot of science websites, I talk to a lot of very knowledgeable scientists, and I've not heard those questions asked overly much.

You throw statements around without any proof to back them up. You introduce topics that have no relevance to what you originally asserted and, when questioned, dodge the issue by introducing more irrelevancies. Please provide substantiation for your assertions or stop making them. Or, if as I suspect, there is no substantiation and you have merely dreamed up this theory, at least have the courtesy to present it in a logical manner, laying out your arguments in a sensible way, so that we can debate it in an appropriate way. If you cannot do this, then I suggest you take your theories elsewhere.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2007 09:26:32 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #26 on: 07/10/2007 10:11:32 »
Lies lies and junk lies
I am already adding "proof" for evolution towards sustainable pleasure under the topic "Algorithm for TSP".
========================================
Quote
There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Micro-evolution has been observed in laboratory conditions. However, I have not yet seen 1 single shred of evidence of evolution towards sustainable pleasure. In fact, I would say the opposite is the case. If evolution is driven by the need for sustainable pleasure, how do you explain prey animals? Do you think that living in constant fear of being eaten is a step towards sustainable pleasure?
Fear is not something which is desired and is therefore absent. There is no sense of "contant" fear.
But a sense "constant movement towards pleasure".
Animals do not feel stressed or suffer from depression in natural conditions is in fact a proof in favour of TSP.Where as the Animals which do not find the natural habitat suffer from depression.
================================
Quote
DIfferent rates of evolution? Simple. If the niche an organism fills disappears then the organism will need to evolve rapidly or it will become extinct. If the organism is comfortable in its environment, has plenty of food etc, then there is no need for urgent evolution. Plus, of course, evolution is a generational thing. The faster an organism reproduces, the more chance there is for rapid evolution.
fastest reproducing life entities are virus and microbes.
Its a complete stupidity to think that mindless reproduction leads to evolution.
It is the opposite. Those who move towards sustainable pleasure survive rest become dead.

====================================
Quote
So, who is it that is asking these questions? I read a lot of science magazines, I visit a lot of science websites, I talk to a lot of very knowledgeable scientists, and I've not heard those questions asked overly much.
It is a secret.
Quote
You throw statements around without any proof to back them up. You introduce topics that have no relevance to what you originally asserted and, when questioned, dodge the issue by introducing more irrelevancies. Please provide substantiation for your assertions or stop making them. Or, if as I suspect, there is no substantiation and you have merely dreamed up this theory, at least have the courtesy to present it in a logical manner, laying out your arguments in a sensible way, so that we can debate it in an appropriate way. If you cannot do this, then I suggest you take your theories elsewhere.
Or is it the otherway round.You dont what to ask ?
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #28 on: 07/10/2007 18:45:20 »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #29 on: 07/10/2007 19:21:44 »
No, you have not given any proof. You have put forward conjectures that are based on false uderstanding of established scientific principles.

Face the truth, no-one here is going to be convinced by your mindless babbling so I suggest you use the forum at http://yetanotherloony.com to spout your rubbish.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #30 on: 07/10/2007 20:05:28 »
proof of what?
Do you know that gene replication theory doesnt predict anything?
It says "There is nothing but consequences."

Are you reading TSP algorithm ? Are you able to understand?Do you understand how it relates to the Gene replication theory and why ?

You are wasting your time if you have nothing to contribute.

 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #31 on: 07/10/2007 20:08:26 »
What has been wasting my time is reading your rubbish. Henceforth, that is an error I shall not repeat.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #32 on: 09/10/2007 08:42:22 »
DOnt value this thread and you persih.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908313/posts

Quote
Professor Richard Dawkins, a senior British evolutionary scientist and outspoken atheist, drew fire on Monday for saying that Jews ?more or less monopolize American foreign policy.? Religious Jews are a small group, Dawkins said, but are ?fantastically successful? in lobbying the US government. Dawkins, who is currently in the US in an attempt to promote atheism and fight religious influence, expressed hope that atheists would be similarly successful in determining government policy.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #33 on: 09/10/2007 09:11:00 »
Quote
DOnt value this thread and you persih.

Please don't use bullying language like that on our forum.  It's his decision whether or not to value this thread, and as he sees no scientific merit in what you are saying, he chooses not to.  This will have no consequence for him, (he will certainly not perish as a result of ignoring you) but you have lost yet another person who you may, had you been reasonable and taken on board what the intelligent people on this forum have to say, have cone round to your way of thinking.

Any hypothesis that can't stand up to scrutiny is incorrect, and I fail to see you and 'sustainable pleasure' standing up to any scrutiny, so maybe Doctor Beaver has the right idea.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #34 on: 09/10/2007 10:36:25 »
Do you think that the intelligent people are not playing politics?
They are stupid and I dont care for his approval.
I appeal to your conscience...
It is not Religion Vs. Science
It is Science Vs. Science
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #35 on: 09/10/2007 11:00:20 »
I'm certain that some intelligent people do play politics, but I think you will find few of them here.  Most people come to this forum to discuss science, share ideas and educate themselves.

Quote
Do you think that the intelligent people are not playing politics?
They are stupid and I dont care for his approval.

So intelligent people are stupid and although you told someone that the would perish if they ignored your rants, you claim not to care for his approval?

In what way is any of this science vs science? and what does religion have to do with it?
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #36 on: 09/10/2007 11:09:28 »
Religion, rituals and its reason propagates using meme.
And religion has led to irrationality.
Science is rational and considers the Universe as rationalizable ... therefore from scientific point of view Religion is a Virus.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #37 on: 09/10/2007 13:01:03 »
The  war :
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=hillary_brings_up_science_but_will_it_st_5&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Quote
...instead of fostering a climate of discovery and innovation, the Bush administration has declared war on science. The record is breathtaking: banning the most promising kinds of stem cell research, allowing political appointees to censor studies on climate change, muzzling global warming experts like Dr. James Hansen, overruling doctors and the FDA on emergency contraception, suppressing and manipulating data on mercury pollution, even delaying one report which found that 8 percent of women between 16 and 49 years of age have mercury levels in their blood that could harm future children, denying the risks of toxins like asbestos in the air after the 9/11 attacks, overruling scientists who sought to protect animals under the Endangered Species Act, eliminating scientific committees at the Department of Health and Human Services that did not parrot the politically accepted ideology -- or packing those committees with industry insiders, altering scientific tests on the lead content of children's lunch boxes -- and appointing a lead industry consultant to a key panel formed by the Centers for Disease Control, barring a USDA researcher from publishing or even discussing his work on antibiotic resistant bacteria, censoring government websites on breast cancer research, contraception, climate change, and so much else.


 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
 

Offline Carolyn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #39 on: 09/10/2007 17:41:39 »
Can everyone please note how well i have been to steer clear of this and other "interesting" topics. I think i deserve a round of applause.

Very impressive Paul!  I know you've already received one round, but I'm so impressed I think you deserve two!

 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #40 on: 09/10/2007 17:48:48 »
DOnt value this thread and you persih.


Oooh, I'm so scared I'm going to buy more toilet paper
 

Offline kdlynn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2851
    • View Profile
Re: War on Science
« Reply #41 on: 10/10/2007 03:27:02 »
strangely enough, dkv, you were once again asked a direct, clear, and reasonable question and you have failed to answer except with more gibberish...
 

Offline pete_inthehills

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
    • The Beggshill Bothy
War on Science
« Reply #42 on: 10/10/2007 11:56:59 »
I was always amused by those folk who wanted to put a sticker on any books explaining evolution.  The sticker would say "this is just one theory of how the world was created".
To be fair, then the religious books should also have a sticker saying "this is just one theory of how the world is created."

pete
inthehill
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #43 on: 12/11/2007 04:22:50 »
So call scientific facts are provisional, any reputable scientist will tell you this. Global warming is not the only issue. Reducing all forms of pollution, which no one considers healthy, is. Who wants to wait for definitive evidence of global warming? Is it not reasonable to reduce air borne pollution. Much of the fish that we catch is not safe to eat. Who do we think we are fooling? The entire planet is largely polluted. Scientific investigation is a global phenomenon, which no administration can long deny. Moreover, public awareness will demand change. I believe, in the long run, environmental science will prevail. As to what science in certain areas can pursue, this is a sensitive issue. Hopefully, enlightened dialog will decide what is reasonable. As a society, we are not especially enlightened, in my view. As such, we must elect enlightened representatives at all levels if we hope to turn this situation around. Or become such enlightened leaders. Can you suggest a better solution?       
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

War on Science
« Reply #43 on: 12/11/2007 04:22:50 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length