0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
if you ask a question, then it is opinions you will get
I think people do realise how entrenched science can be
surely this is a *discussion* forum and forums have been around long enough for people to understand they are not reference points. *insert latin phrase for taking responsibility for your own research*
*insert latin phrase for taking responsibility for your own research*
How about:"TIGREM IN LACU HABEO"
People are not sponges, they don't need molly coddling and having everything explained to them or pointed out just how vastly wrong another forum member is.
Are you saying that there should be no disagreement within a forum (because someone may become upset)?Would there be any point at all in discussing the outcome of 2+3? Would we just take a survey of the various opinions about the answer? A vast amount of what is 'discussed' in these Forums is along these lines. Fair enough, but it is 'Just Chat'.
You are wrong, for the following reasons . . . coherent argument based on some established knowledge" is not being rude. It's not attacking someone. It's a reply, made to a post which may be full of absolute rubbish.
Why was the statement / question posted in the first place? There are various motives and some of them actually require some help with common conception problems. There are many posts which are away with the fairies (I think we would all agree) and many which, in a very gauche way, attack some 'good Science' and make out the whole Science establishment to be like the Taliban. Are we not to make any assertions in order to put them right?
he TNS broad/pod casts are as rigorous as they can be (the disclaimers have to be there, of course). Why shouldn't a Forum with the title "Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology" contain as much rigour as possible? How will an uninformed visitor stand a chance of becoming better informed if all it contains is subjective opinions along the lines of a Fashion Forum?
QuoteI think people do realise how entrenched science can beThe word "entrenched" is a bit loaded, is it not? Buildings can be relied upon to stand up because their foundations are laid in "trenches". One man's "entrenchment" is another man's "foundation". (Or person's, if you like)
Q. When does an 'opinion' become an 'attack'?A. When we're losing the argument.
Quote from: sophiecentaur on 23/08/2009 23:47:43QuoteI think people do realise how entrenched science can beThe word "entrenched" is a bit loaded, is it not? Buildings can be relied upon to stand up because their foundations are laid in "trenches". One man's "entrenchment" is another man's "foundation". (Or person's, if you like)I think entrenched is the right word considering how vehemently certain theories are defended by their advocates. But do we really want to get into semantic arguments?
Newton's laws of motion are actually being called into question now, are they not? I've read a lot of articles where the new theory is dismissed out of hand simply because the existing laws have apparently passed the test of time. I call that entrenchment.