nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

You Can't Trust Science!

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM

There are obviously some people in this forum who truly believe the title of this thread, and in fact see Science as some kind of corrosive force in human advancement, etc. So when I saw this video, I thought of you guys.

Remember, next time you enter your kitchen, switch the light on and get a glass of clean drinking water from your refrigerator before returning to your PC to research, you have only one thing to be thankful for.

Enjoy.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mysterious

PirateShampoo wrote: »

So what your saying is that you knew about DNA before you where even born?

Torakx

mysterious wrote: »

Science never really gets the answer. It's always changing. And science is so flawed because the masses just accept everything science has to say as fact, without looking at other missing links or sources. Like E.T connections.

Which we do have and always had.

Do you mean the actual protocols of science or do you mean scientists.
For me they are like chalk and cheese.
This may be the source of the confusion in this trhead regarding people thinking others dont trust science.
For me science is 1 + 1 = 2 its proveable in the context that numbers represent to us.
Now there could be another reality that we are part of without knowing, where 1 + 1 = something else and because the science of numbers in our reality is based on this protocol we might consider 1 + 1 = 2 as fact where it may not be.
But with that said i would be dissapointed if you told me you totally dont trust science.Because with the structure and nature of scientific protocols like testing and reproducing the same results consistently for example, i think it is suitable to coincide with spiritual research and any other possible reality that could coexist with us.
I dont trust scientists myself as far as i could throw them because they are corruptable.
With science itself as a method to seek knowledge and understanding its my belief that it must coincide with spirituality because we live in a material plane of existence and we need both imo.
Anyway that was a long question but i was just wondering how others felt that have been posting more or less negatively about the scientific community.
Again its not that i agree or dissagree wholely on any of these subjects or with anyone here, i tend to prefer a mixed outlook where i can take a bit from both sides and try see for myself what appears most likely.

bonkey

Torakx wrote: »

For me science is 1 + 1 = 2 its proveable in the context that numbers represent to us.

Being picky (again), 1+1=2 is mathematics, and is proveable within the context we define for mathematics.

In science, we can't actually prove anything. OK...that's not strictly correct. With a negative result, we can prove that something isn't always true...but that's about the limit of it.

We can measure something as many times as we like. We can have a scientific model that predicts the outcomes of these measurements accurately....but we can never prove that the next time we measure it, it'll be the same. We can reach a point of great confidence...which to the layman may be sufficient to consider "proof"...but we cannot prove things using science.

the science of numbers

Again, being pedantic..this is a bad example. There is no "science of numbers". Mathematics <> science.

Torakx

bonkey wrote: »

Being picky (again), 1+1=2 is mathematics, and is proveable within the context we define for mathematics.

In science, we can't actually prove anything. OK...that's not strictly correct. With a negative result, we can prove that something isn't always true...but that's about the limit of it.

We can measure something as many times as we like. We can have a scientific model that predicts the outcomes of these measurements accurately....but we can never prove that the next time we measure it, it'll be the same. We can reach a point of great confidence...which to the layman may be sufficient to consider "proof"...but we cannot prove things using science.

Again, being pedantic..this is a bad example. There is no "science of numbers". Mathematics <> science.

While posting i did look up the word science in the dictionary.
I think if you understand the point im making you wouldnt be discussing symantecs.i realise maths isnt the epitomy of science i was using an example.And i believe i did include a safetly net when i mentioned it was in conjunction with our current reality on this material plane of existence.
Im not great at explaining myself i know.It sometimes requires that people use a bit of insight to figure out what the nonsense im spouting means in english

I do agree that the word "prove" should be subjective when talking about science but maybe it is subjective fullstop.Maybe you cant prove anything because there are so many possibilities in this universe,but this is sidestepping a little i think.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

To repack my question into a basic form that ussually gets misinterpreted on me, do some of you guys have a problem with science or is it just the scientists?

Wibbs

mysterious wrote: »

The "junk DNA" Is not junk, and nor is it from Neandethal.

Well I suspect that we've got DNA that codes for certain features and that may well come from Neandertals.

It's only called Junk, because the science community doesn't know what it does.

That bit I defo agree with.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on the topic o ideologies and Science, this is big news for followers of one 'Group'

Not really. Think about it, the Ku Klux Klan are not likely to be best pleased to discover white people may have become white from getting jiggy with "apemen". Though the notion will doubtless lead to even more ""well the neandertals were terribly advanced you know":D Which I believe they were anyway. Given many of that type would also be fundy christians = can of worms open. Then add in that by this study, Africans are the "purest" humans by many racists own definitions. Well basically this may not go down well with the racist types at all.

It may reduce even further the BS surrounding that. We're all one big family of humans and it looks like we always were, at least for the last 200,000 years. I love the notion that I've got Neandertal DNA knocking about inside my cells. If I found homo erectus DNA was in the mix even cooler.

It'll be interesting to see backtracking in many scientific quarters the more this gets out, as many high level vocal scientists insisted there was no way it happened. In the face of very good evidence and common sense that clearly it did. But because DNA is the scientific fashion de jour, until that fashion said yes it did, other evidence that would be and was equally valid was ignored. Science can be very blinkered at times. Every generation reckons their science is the best and reckons we know most of it. The victorians and after, that rejected plate tectonics were convinced it was nonsense.

It is interesting too that it wasnt more front page news as it is a big deal.

Flamed Diving

Maybe Neanderthals were the "People of Atlantis"

L:DL

Mahatma coat

maybe they were, after all its just arbitrary titles we are trying to place on peoples and points in our history

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

maybe they were, after all its just arbitrary titles we are trying to place on peoples and points in our history

Maybe they came from Pluto. Every opinion is equally true, after all.

Wibbs

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Maybe Neanderthals were the "People of Atlantis"

L:DL

Maybe they were? In the sense of a race memory of us moving into a place to find different humans, successful humans were already there? The notion of "people before us" could be a very old one. So not that LOL at all.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe they were? In the sense of a race memory of us moving into a place to find different humans, successful humans were already there? The notion of "people before us" could be a very old one. So not that LOL at all.

You just don't know what science may discover or take as fact in the future. It evolves so who knows.

Anyway, what's the bet on a new study disproving this? A month?

Mahatma coat

Wibbs wrote: »

..........

Not really. Think about it, the Ku Klux Klan are not likely to be best pleased to discover white people may have become white from getting jiggy with "apemen". Though the notion will doubtless lead to even more ""well the neandertals were terribly advanced you know":D Which I believe they were anyway. Given many of that type would also be fundy christians = can of worms open. Then add in that by this study, Africans are the "purest" humans by many racists own definitions. Well basically this may not go down well with the racist types at all.

I'v been over at SF watchin the debate unfold, the new consensus emerging is that the Europeans hold more of their neanderthal ancestry than the African roots, its the little bit of Neanderthal that now makwsussupreme not the 'Pure African' mix. watch the portrayal of the Neanderthal Skintone in futurepublications

It may reduce even further the BS surrounding that. We're all one big family of humans and it looks like we always were, at least for the last 200,000 years. I love the notion that I've got Neandertal DNA knocking about inside my cells. If I found homo erectus DNA was in the mix even cooler.

It'll be interesting to see backtracking in many scientific quarters the more this gets out, as many high level vocal scientists insisted there was no way it happened. In the face of very good evidence and common sense that clearly it did. But because DNA is the scientific fashion de jour, until that fashion said yes it did, other evidence that would be and was equally valid was ignored. Science can be very blinkered at times. Every generation reckons their science is the best and reckons we know most of it. The victorians and after, that rejected plate tectonics were convinced it was nonsense.

It is interesting too that it wasnt more front page news as it is a big deal.[/QUOTE]
nope the current thinkin that side of the fence isthat this cements thebelief that we are different strains of humanity and Europeans are almost as different to Africans as Africans are to Chimps (see how they word it)

this is where science fails, when the results can be iterpreted dependin on what people FEEL is the right answer

Flamed Diving

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe they were? In the sense of a race memory of us moving into a place to find different humans, successful humans were already there? The notion of "people before us" could be a very old one. So not that LOL at all.

Or maybe they caused the big bang, or were there before it? Maybe they converted themselves to energy, and left Earth, leaving no trace and currently stand outside the universe, all-seeing, all-knowing. :eek:

Mahatma coat

Maybe they did, you dont know what happened any more than the rest of us, like Wibbs said there are a lot of diferent folklores of People before us in many cultures.

Me I still think the Troll stories from Northern Europe are connected to the last of the Nenaderthals.

Flamed Diving

Yeah, but it kind of turns knowledge into a guessing game, doesn't it? Anything goes. Can 3D porn make your girlfriend pregnant? Sure thing! Why bother going for a fertility test? Even if you do, who's to say that those pesky doctors know more than your girl? Perhaps it was space Neanderthals! Perhaps it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn! Perhaps it was the Seven Dwarves! Perhaps...

So how can you tell? How do you arrive at a conclusion?

Mahatma coat

but it is basicly a guessing game

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

but it is basicly a guessing game

Is there no decision that provides the most certainty?

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

You just don't know what science may discover or take as fact in the future. It evolves so who knows.

True.

Anyway, what's the bet on a new study disproving this? A month?

Actually I think it may open the floodgates for other results to come to the fore, that would otherwise be ignored or poo poo'd.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'v been over at SF watchin the debate unfold, the new consensus emerging is that the Europeans hold more of their neanderthal ancestry than the African roots, its the little bit of Neanderthal that now makwsussupreme not the 'Pure African' mix. watch the portrayal of the Neanderthal Skintone in futurepublications

Interestingly in the last few years Neandertals have gone from "swarthy"hairy types to very pale redheads. Even blue eyed types, which is highly unlikely. Maybe we were being prepared

nope the current thinkin that side of the fence isthat this cements thebelief that we are different strains of humanity and Europeans are almost as different to Africans as Africans are to Chimps (see how they word it)

That's a very big sea change from even a year ago and wiat for the backlash. Look at "out of africa" explanations even currently on the web that havent been updated yet and the consensus is/was that all populations were the same came from the same source and we had no admixture from archaic humans. The chimp analogy would have gotten you roasted in academia and still would. Indeed the chimp analogy most used its quite the opposite. That two chimps from different sides of the same valley in africa are more genetically diverse than all modern humans today(which is still true BTW). Quite different. So this study could be a bombshell.

That said I dont see how. It certainly cant possibly explain a notion of racism. Not with any logic anyway, though logic is often lacking in those eejits.

this is where science fails, when the results can be iterpreted dependin on what people FEEL is the right answer

Very much so.

Flamed Diving wrote:

Or maybe they caused the big bang, or were there before it? Maybe they converted themselves to energy, and left Earth, leaving no trace and currently stand outside the universe, all-seeing, all-knowing.

With respect, that's just being silly and narrow minded for the sake of it. Ironic considering.

Flamed Diving

Wibbs wrote: »

With respect, that's just being silly and narrow minded for the sake of it. Ironic considering.

No less so than their possible Atlantean heritage... as far as I can see in this conversation, being open-minded means anything goes.

Yitzhak Rabin

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, but it kind of turns knowledge into a guessing game, doesn't it? Anything goes. Can 3D porn make your girlfriend pregnant? Sure thing! Why bother going for a fertility test? Even if you do, who's to say that those pesky doctors know more than your girl? Perhaps it was space Neanderthals! Perhaps it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn! Perhaps it was the Seven Dwarves! Perhaps...

So how can you tell? How do you arrive at a conclusion?

MC, offered a suggestion that the troll accounts in ancient folklore could be remnants of our encounters with neanderthal. FWIW, I think thats a very plausible suggestion. Think about it... say a group of moderns were living in a valley, and one day they go up to the harsher mountain conditions, and come across a far stronger, and uglier(in their eyes) family unit in a cave and got in a conflict with them, what kind of tales do you think they would tell their kids, and grandkids...and all the way down... surely its a reasonable suggest??

MC only said that he thought that could be the case, not that it was the case... so why compare it to all that bat**** crazy stuff like invisble pink unicorns? Its just being argumentative for the sake of it.

No less so than their possible Atlantean heritage...

Again, no one said it was Atlantean in the sense that plato described it. It is quite possible that the first moderns that came in contact with neanderthals viewed them as being advanced. These then earlier stories of coming across a different and more advanced race could have been exaggerated adapted and embellished over the course of a few thousands years. With the way the greeks had their society setup, it would be easy for plato, or whoever he heard it off to apply their civilization type onto the same themes of an ancient advanced people.

Mahatma coat

Wibbs wrote:

That's a very big sea change from even a year ago and wiat for the backlash. Look at "out of africa" explanations even currently on the web that havent been updated yet and the consensus is/was that all populations were the same came from the same source and we had no admixture from archaic humans. The chimp analogy would have gotten you roasted in academia and still would. Indeed the chimp analogy most used its quite the opposite. That two chimps from different sides of the same valley in africa are more genetically diverse than all modern humans today(which is still true BTW). Quite different. So this study could be a bombshell.

That said I dont see how. It certainly cant possibly explain a notion of racism. Not with any logic anyway, though logic is often lacking in those eejits.

yeah, but, even in the out of africa theory for Modern Humans theNenaerthals still exixt as a seperate Breed/Species of human for a long time and then just dissapering from existance, it was previously postulated that they had interbred, this new research shows a Third genetic marker of another species of hominid at a later date which is seperate to both the Africans and the Neanderthals.

I'd like to see a much broader study done to really map out the divergence and evolution that led to us

Flamed Diving

yekahs wrote: »

MC, offered a suggestion that the troll accounts in ancient folklore could be remnants of our encounters with neanderthal. FWIW, I think thats a very plausible suggestion. Think about it... say a group of moderns were living in a valley, and one day they go up to the harsher mountain conditions, and come across a far stronger, and uglier(in their eyes) family unit in a cave and got in a conflict with them, what kind of tales do you think they would tell their kids, and grandkids...and all the way down... surely its a reasonable suggest??

MC only said that he thought that could be the case, not that it was the case... so why compare it to all that bat**** crazy stuff like invisble pink unicorns? Its just being argumentative for the sake of it.

I am clearly making a point. Allow me to help you in seeing it. There are potentially an infinite number of guesses that could be made to explain any phenomenon. Unless you have some mechanism for telling them apart, then literally anything goes. Out of the list I provided, there was only two that were falsifiable, and one which has already been tested rigorously.

Not all options are equally valid. If something is falsifiable, then it at least can be ruled out. This is what the thread is about. Can science be trusted? Well, science only deals with what is falsifiable, something it can attach some level of confidence to. Whether you like to admit it or not, all else is simply guessing, and ideas in this realm, are equally valid (and invalid). This group were the, ahem, "bat**** crazy" stuff.

Yitzhak Rabin

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I am clearly making a point. Allow me to help you in seeing it. There are potentially an infinite number of guesses that could be made to explain any phenomenon. Unless you have some mechanism for telling them apart, then literally anything goes. Out of the list I provided, there was only two that were falsifiable, and one which has already been tested rigorously.

Not all options are equally valid. If something is falsifiable, then it at least can be ruled out. This is what the thread is about. Can science be trusted? Well, science only deals with what is falsifiable, something it can attach some level of confidence to. Whether you like to admit it or not, all else is simply guessing, and ideas in this realm, are equally valid. This group were the, ahem, "bat**** crazy" stuff.

Yeah...I'm well aware of how the scientific method operates. I don't think anyone was making a scientific claim of knowing that they were correct, apart from Mysty.

No-one was making assertions...they were just discussing possibilities. When it comes to historical sciences, alot of the time you cannot falsify the claims, you just have to go on what is possible,likely and probable. For instance, when scientists look at a fossil, they infer certain traits about that dead animal onto it, say that it was likely a fast runner due to lower bone density or whatever. Those claims are unfalsifiable, no one can go back and say...aha you're wrong, I went back to the Triassic and he was a slow b@stard. So it is not as clearcut as that when postulating what could have happened in the past.

The theories/hypothesis/ideas whatever you want to call them that MC put forward, are very reasonable. We know that Neanderthal and modern Africans came in contact with each other. We know Neanderthal was stronger and had more pronounced feautures. We know that when a species becomes extinct as neanderthals did, that they recede to more isolated areas(i.e further up the mountains). We also know of the phenomenon known as cultural memory, wherby ancient stories are passed down by people and the "memory" can become embedded in the culture. So is it not a reasonable suggestion that the folklore tales of trolls could be cultural memory of Neanderthal? Which do you think is more likely...that or that there is a race of space-neanderthal that came to earth and thats where the memory comes from.

In my opinion, you stifle discussion and generally p1ss people off when you cheapen the discussion by saying what we all already know...that there are an infinite number of possible answers to any question.

Instead of saying that, why not respond with a variant of "thats interesting" or "I doubt thats true because x,y, z". I mean, you don't go onto the paleontology forum when the possible uses of early dinosaur plumage is being discussed, and say "eh lads, you do know all your suggestions are unfalsifiable , I mean maybe they used them as a way of communicating with the invisible pink unicorn LOL!"

Mahatma coat

Actually the Dinosaur point is very interestin, I mentioned to a Girlfriend a few years ago about how it made a much more sensible use of T-Rex's arms if it had stablising feathers, I didnt go so ar as to suggest it might fly, she derided me, but later that week she dropped by the Queensland Natural history Museum and Lo and behold the models were updated to now include plumage.

fontanalis

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'v been over at SF watchin the debate unfold, the new consensus emerging is that the Europeans hold more of their neanderthal ancestry than the African roots, its the little bit of Neanderthal that now makwsussupreme not the 'Pure African' mix. watch the portrayal of the Neanderthal Skintone in futurepublications

It'll be interesting to see backtracking in many scientific quarters the more this gets out, as many high level vocal scientists insisted there was no way it happened. In the face of very good evidence and common sense that clearly it did. But because DNA is the scientific fashion de jour, until that fashion said yes it did, other evidence that would be and was equally valid was ignored. Science can be very blinkered at times. Every generation reckons their science is the best and reckons we know most of it. The victorians and after, that rejected plate tectonics were convinced it was nonsense.

It is interesting too that it wasnt more front page news as it is a big deal.

nope the current thinkin that side of the fence isthat this cements thebelief that we are different strains of humanity and Europeans are almost as different to Africans as Africans are to Chimps (see how they word it)

this is where science fails, when the results can be iterpreted dependin on what people FEEL is the right answer[/QUOTE]

Is SF some dedicated genetic research website?

Yitzhak Rabin

Is SF some dedicated genetic research website?

Thankfully not. I presume he means Stormfront. A bunch of bigots hang around there to discuss the merits of being white.

fontanalis

Here's an article on it, anyway it seems the Neanderathal mixing wasn't just with Europeans but with Eurasians. Funny he believes scientists this time.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/no-scientists-had-to-die-for-this-paradigm-shift/#comments

If only our reptilian overlords barcoded people back then.

Mahatma coat

yekahs wrote: »

Thankfully not. I presume he means Stormfront. A bunch of bigots hang around there to discuss the merits of being white.

yep SF == StormFront

and to be specific they mostly discuss the merits of being a White Christian english speaking Hetrosexual male who Drives a Pickuptruck.

altho sometimes they stray into discussions about attractive Cousins

fontanalis

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yep SF == StormFront

and to be specific they mostly discuss the merits of being a White Christian english speaking Hetrosexual male who Drives a Pickuptruck.

altho sometimes they stray into discussions about attractive Cousins :D

Ah yes, mutant mouth breathers who claim to be the master race.

Mahatma coat

I would have settled for

People who hold a different outlook to yours as regards Race Religion Persusations etc

fontanalis

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I would have settled for

People who hold a different outlook to yours as regards Race Religion Persusations etc

You mean skin color, imaginary friends and teh ghey?
But can they be trusted, I suppose they can if they aren't scientists.