Page 2 of 4 <1234>
Topic Options
#106572 - 05/01/16 02:31 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
...

I had a friend (extremely intelligent man) - a scientific worker... He told me that inside "science" community a "biggest prostitution" is going on:
science workers and their bosses would do only certain researches and PURSUE only certain specific things,
based on profit which comes from grant$ given


2. Now about water fluoridation...
Some places, like certain cities and town (England in particular - banned this poison to be added to drinking water, since it destroys inner organs like stomach and liver, if added).
Now, a logical question - why then they add it to water at all, (if it destroys inner organs)
The answer is: when it binds to teeth - it can create a certain protection for enamel.
Politicians who advocate water fluoridation explain, that poor people do not even usually care to go to the dentist and often do not take care of their teeth - so adding poison fluoride to drinking water is the only way as this element binds to enamel before it goes down the stomach and further inside the body.
SO non-poor (non-ghetto) people (although using toothpaste WITH THE FLUORIDE which is enough to protect the teeth)also have to fall victims to this practice...
typical RHP mentality decision
how a "normal" part of population has be somewhat sacrificed as careless are staying careless...

50 reasons to oppose water fluoridation:
http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html


Edited by Naama (05/01/16 02:32 PM)
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106575 - 05/01/16 03:18 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
 Originally Posted By: Naama
...

2. Now about water fluoridation...
Some places, like certain cities and town (England in particular - banned this poison to be added to drinking water, since it destroys inner organs like stomach and liver, if added).
Now, a logical question - why then they add it to water at all, (if it destroys inner organs)
The answer is: when it binds to teeth - it can create a certain protection for enamel.
Politicians who advocate water fluoridation explain, that poor people do not even usually care to go to the dentist and often do not take care of their teeth - so adding poison fluoride to drinking water is the only way as this element binds to enamel before it goes down the stomach and further inside the body.
SO non-poor (non-ghetto) people (although using toothpaste WITH THE FLUORIDE which is enough to protect the teeth)also have to fall victims to this practice...
typical RHP mentality decision
how a "normal" part of population has be somewhat sacrificed as careless are staying careless...

50 reasons to oppose water fluoridation:
http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html


In my view toothpaste is a better way to apply fluoride then drinking water, I give you that.

But Fluoride destroying inner organs ? that sounds like conspiracy speak to me from Alex Jones.

You have a good point being doubtful about water fluoridation, but for the wrong reasons.

Be aware that fluoride compounds are natural occurring in many drinking water sources and not rarely in higher amounts then the safety amounts that are added to drinking water.
If the amounts are higher then the safety limit, it is even removed to meet that safety limit.
So you see it is a double edged sword in a fluoridation controlled area like the US.

Here in the Netherlands there is no fluoride added to the water supply but also not removed. That makes it possible that the water I am drinking contains more fluoride then your fluoride added water.

Fluoride is a element naturally occurring in many forms mainly salts, all over the world in varying amounts. Toxicity is is all about the dose.

 Originally Posted By: Naama
I had a friend (extremely intelligent man) - a scientific worker... He told me that inside "science" community a "biggest prostitution" is going on:
science workers and their bosses would do only certain researches and PURSUE only certain specific things,
based on profit which comes from grant$ given


That what you state above is an anecdotal example of a friend.
Although I see you as trust worthy and have no clear reason to think your friend is laying or what so ever.
The weight of anecdotal evidence is low.

S.


Edited by Stick (05/01/16 03:40 PM)

Top
#106576 - 05/01/16 03:32 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
Loc: Oregon
General reply:

When I question the scientific method, I question who does the research, how its done, what information is kept, cut out, moulded, re-shaped to look like something else, who funds it, who gets hired, how those people and their influence change the information, who is going to publish the information, who is going to do more editing...

I wonder what the original data looks like before it is published into text books.

@Czereda: What I forgot to add in my last post, is that progress and the 'quality of life' is subjective. What are you talking about when you say our quality of life is better?

I don't know about that. People are dying of heart disease every day, people are pissed off, stressed out, upset, they can't seem to find peace of mind.

I can't know for sure about our ancestors, but they likely had less population/congestions issues to deal with, less cancer, poisoning, more access to fresh water and food. But my example is going further back before the industrial revolution started.

Say we were talking about the 1800s London, where people did throw their shit in the streets, yes, you are right in that respect, we do have it better.

My experience in the woods has taught me two things: I like quick access to home cooked food, and my hot showers.

Quality of life can depend on many avenues. I suppose we just need to narrow it down to more specifics.

@AK

Glad to see you still read my every word, relentlessly scrutinizing every statement. Makes me feel special \:\)

But I wonder, how much more do you offer besides your commentary? If you are going to ask me for answers, why not set the standard higher, and do it yourself?

Regardless, I know somewhere in your criticism you have good points AK. So to answer your question, here is what I think:

Transportation: I like what Europe has done with their train system. More public transportation, less cars on the road.

There really is enough food to go around the planet. The idea that we don't have enough food is false. We currently have enough food to feed the entire planet of humans.

Problem is, these food sources are being threatened. Not by GW mind you, but over fishing, ground poisoning, clear cutting.

We have got to stop the people who are clear cutting the jungles. You want atmospheric disaster? Keep cutting down the things that give us air.

This along with drilling, fracking, dumping chemicals into rivers... there are giant holes in the earth that we mine constantly. I don't think we've come a long way from poking around in the dirt. You can thank the dirt for your technology.

You've got me wrong AK. I don't think we should go live in caves, in fact, all I ever said was that they are wonderful places. I doubt we are going to be able to go back to anything. Mankind put aside, nature changes every day. There really is no 'going back.'

The closest thing I could comprehend at the moment, is to leave the damn oceans alone to replenish their stock. Again, I don't think any environment is ever going to return to some great eden. It never was. But we could let the fish reproduce for a couple of decades.

Ultimately, we might need to start cutting creature comforts, and start growing/cooking our own food. It amazes me how many people can't even cook spaghetti, or make toast without burning it.

There is a mass stupidity problem, and I think a lot of it is stress related. This is also a great issue, people have become so stressed out its hard for most people to calm down and think. I believe a lot of our social issues are a result of environmental/quality of living situations. I've been to a few cities in my life, and I think I would only ever live in one or two. Maybe

I'll add more later. I don't have the answers all mapped out to perfection AK, but there's something for you to chew on for a little while.

Conclusion: Even if we don't know, we need to hit these issues with heavy force. It is going to take even more power, resources, and new technology, and nothing is without consequence, but the world is a shit hole right now.
We need to start doing whatever we possibly can. Moreover, I think a lot of the issues like global warming, are almost acting as a kind of decoy to steer people's attention from the real problems, which would be the root cause, say GW was true. In other words, hit the cause and not the symptom, and that's a whole new book of crazy sauce.
_________________________
https://youtu.be/8nW-IPrzM1g

Top
#106578 - 05/01/16 04:14 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
Like 10 years ago I was travelling in Asia, were there are area's which could be looked at as an way back machine...
No Electricity, gas, modern tools or machine soil cultivation.

They were cooking on wood.
The really small villages were fine but once they exceed let's say 200 persons you get quickly smog problems. I am telling you I live now in a medium sized city and the air is cleaner here then in those communities using wood as a heat source.

If "we" want to keep a decent piece of "untouched nature" Sea and Jungle life, I think the only option is to fully synthesized protein sources.
Lab grown meat. They are advancing right now with DNA recombination.

S.




Edited by Stick (05/01/16 04:22 PM)

Top
#106582 - 05/01/16 05:32 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2089
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
What I forgot to add in my last post, is that progress and the 'quality of life' is subjective. What are you talking about when you say our quality of life is better?

I don't know about that. People are dying of heart disease every day, people are pissed off, stressed out, upset, they can't seem to find peace of mind.


I think it's quite obvious. The mortality rate declined, we are generally healthier, have better hygiene standards and are richer. Yeah people still die and there are various illnesses but I doubt we will ever be immortal. In the past, people died en masse from diseases that are curable today or prevented with vaccinations.

You talk about obesity and stress as if they were something new. Do you think that in the past people were really less stressed? I doubt it. As for obesity, it was not so uncommon in the ancient times. Of course, the plebs could suffer from malnutrition but among the higher social classes there were enough of obese people.

 Quote:
At least the ground will bio-decay your waste.


So once I went for a holiday with friends and we stopped near the forest, the outskirts of which served as the toilet for all the tourists going in the direction we were going. Damn, it was a minefield. One had to constantly watch one's every step. Somehow the forest had difficulties with processing all the poop deposited there. More humans - more shit, more waste, more pollution. Do you suggest we commit mass suicide to save the environment or what?

 Quote:
At least they found ways to survive in the living world...


The world changes. The key word is adaptation. To survive you have to adapt to the present conditions you live in. You don't go hunting today in the woods. You work, buy your food and find your place in the society. The difference between us is that you view human civilization as something unnatural. I see it as the part of our evolution, as a natural order of things. One can bitch about it all day long but I only wonder to what purpose. But hey, I once read an article where one dude argued it would be more comfortable for us to walk on all fours and that it all went wrong.

 Quote:
Nature cares.


It doesn't care in the sense that it kills organisms regularly: plants, animals, humans too. Nature isn't sentimental.

Me thinks you have a problem with accepting the world for what it is. By all means, keep dreaming about your utopia.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#106586 - 05/01/16 06:37 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Quote:
Glad to see you still read my every word, relentlessly scrutinizing every statement. Makes me feel special
That's what's all about for me: helping people with self-esteem problems.

 Quote:
But I wonder, how much more do you offer besides your commentary? If you are going to ask me for answers, why not set the standard higher, and do it yourself?
I did.

 Quote:
Transportation: I like what Europe has done with their train system. More public transportation, less cars on the road.
'Still requires science. Even so, the forces that set into motion this current state-of-affairs regarding public transportation in the US were largely economic – see http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/streetcars.htm

 Quote:
There really is enough food to go around the planet. The idea that we don't have enough food is false. We currently have enough food to feed the entire planet of humans.
I never said we didn't. Maybe we do, maybe we don't – I don't know. But if we do, it is due to scientific advances in agricultural and irrigation. That the food is not reaching everyone's mouth is, once again, a matter for which economic principles are largely at fault.

With regards to other points made (*cough cough * backpeddling) in conjunction with Naama's anecdote:
 Quote:
had a friend (extremely intelligent man) - a scientific worker... He told me that inside "science" community a "biggest prostitution" is going on:
science workers and their bosses would do only certain researches and PURSUE only certain specific things,
based on profit which comes from grant$ given


The problems you are referring to aren't problems created by science or the scientific method, but rather the manner in which research is incentivized. Systemic issues of policy and economics.

In other words, you're both barking up the wrong tree.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106589 - 05/01/16 08:41 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: antikarmatomic]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: Czereda
The difference between us is that you view human civilization as something unnatural.


I don't believe in unnatural Czereda, for me it does not exist.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
Somehow the forest had difficulties with processing all the poop deposited there. More humans - more shit, more waste, more pollution. Do you suggest we commit mass suicide to save the environment or what?


It would seem, we are well on our way to mass suicide if we keep the insanity levels up long enough.

Mass amounts of poop, yes that can cause problems to. The bacteria/soil level rates may be thrown off. I don't know soil science very well, but ph levels might be way off kilter in your scenario.

Still, the streets aren't much better. I'm not entirely against suage systems. I think those have done well to keep away sickness just as well as antibiotics.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
The mortality rate declined, we are generally healthier, have better hygiene standards and are richer.


Going back to the mass fatassery... I don't know if in Europe its the same as the US. Certainly Latin American countries do not have that problem. I don't know if you've ever visited the states Czereda, but fatassery is everywhere, and people die of heart attacks like crazy. People here are very fat.

Now, if you think most people in the world live better lives, I will say it again: It depends where you go. The west, compared to the east, has it better, living wise. But I've met people who don't have a lot in other areas, who are happy, partly because they don't live in high strung environments around crazy people.

Also, there are a huge number of suffering people everywhere the world over. I wouldn't say its a minority either. A lot of people suffer the effects of poverty, which is insane to think about if you've ever seen it first hand. I don't know how people can keep living in some of these circumstances. Its not all misfortune and environmental depletion, but more along the lines of flat out human cruelty.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
Me thinks you have a problem with accepting the world for what it is. By all means, keep dreaming about your utopia.


Ok. So, you either do not read my entire posts, or you are forgetting what I say, or perhaps I have to be blunt.

I am not a hippy, environmentalist, conversationalist, or a stewardship believer. *I also do not believe in the 'elite run the show' patriarchal way of thinking. I know people have the capacity for intelligence, however, people react to particular things the way they are taught to. This is a whole other matter.

Allow me to make this much clear:

Hippys like weed, and think because they feel good and high that they are all knowing. This encompasses the environment. Most of their views are of highly limited information. Everything concerning the environment in the hippy world view always circulates back to weed.

Environmentalists are usually out to see how they can control/manipulate the living world. Since it is a non linear chaotic system, it is unpredictable, and any change we make is only ever temporary. Our medellings in trying to 'change' the environment always comes out uglier than intended. Look up what happened with yellow stone park, or any instance where things were killed off, predators introduced, killed off again. People make quick decisions, based on politics, not science, and yes Czereda, bad things happen. I blame environmental organizations for destroying more of the world.

Conservationist are a little strange to. I believe in leaving nature alone as much as possible, but what is 'as much as possible' depends on a lot of actions and outcomes, and I can not say for sure that it is possible. Certainly we do not need to cut down the jungles and allow poisoning of the oceans as much as we do. As far as I know, these conservationists are the 'Eden believers.' This seems to be your interpretation of me, even though I've made it clear I understand how difficult the wilderness is. I don't know if you are ignoring my points or simply forgetting what I say. That aside, these people believe nature was always an Eden paradise, perfected by nature, until evil mankind came in and used his greedy 'unnatural' technology to rape our ever life giving mother. Life giving, sure, mother... I don't really care about that analogy. The first part is nonsense of course. Anyone, including me, who have suffered the consequences of going off the beaten path, know that the living world is very cruel and unforgiving. Perhaps this is what you mean when you say nature doesn't care. But nature cares, that's why it fights to live. The second part, claiming that we've raped poor mother Earth, well, its not too far from the truth, but I admit it is somewhat dramatized for effect.

This leads to a common 'stewardship' world view. The idea is, since we have this capacity to create technology and manipulate things in ways that can make instantaneous change to the world, for better or ill, that we have an obligated duty to care for and play steward to all life on earth, treating all things with equal respect to their place in the world, and caring for them all without discrimination

I find this one very hard to believe, since it mostly implies that we have the so called 'power' to play steward to something we cannot control, something we don't even understand very well, and that is, nature itself.

I should make it clear. Nature is the behaviour and drive of any given thing. Stars burn, planets spin, life feeds on life etc. I see nature in a more holistic/universal standing, if you like.

Stewardship applies that all mankind's concerns are secondary to our part in playing care giver to the poor ailing planet. It neither implies a greater understanding of the environment, nor why mankind, being as destructive as we are, are even fit to do so. It's plain dumb hypocrisy.

My point again: We have got to stop cutting down the forests. We have got to get a threshold on the diggin, drilling, and ground intoxication. Things need to be done about our garbage. There is far too much plastic in the world.

*Cleaning up our mess isn't really playing care giver, so much as it is being responsible to what we do, and leaving nature alone. This is where I differ, and have conflict in my own thoughts. I don't believe in being a steward, but then again, we do have to keep things from infecting the earth.

I suppose the only difference, is that stewards believe in being able to care for the planet off the shot, when there is still a lot of detail we need to pay attention to as we go along our business.

Any technology we make for any cause is going to have counter effects and take up more resources. I think scrutiny of scientific endeavour and collected data is in order. More scientists, and less politicians making decisions. This is another huge issue, I am only scraping the ice burg here, but there it is.

I could go on and on. This is a huge issue with a lot to consider.

 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
In other words, you're both barking up the wrong tree.


Good point, and one I should have been more clear about. Perhaps the belief in economy and politics has met its stopping point. Is money really more important than the living earth? Sure, rich people think so, and I guess the poor think that doing what the rich say is the best for them.

So the question remains, what is going to help people learn, and more importantly, take action? That's a top that doesn't stop spinning.

 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
That the food is not reaching everyone's mouth is, once again, a matter for which economic principles are largely at fault.


I agree.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/01/16 08:56 PM)
Edit Reason: *edits
_________________________
https://youtu.be/8nW-IPrzM1g

Top
#106596 - 05/02/16 04:54 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2089
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
My point again: We have got to stop cutting down the forests. We have got to get a threshold on the diggin, drilling, and ground intoxication. Things need to be done about our garbage. There is far too much plastic in the world.


I'm not sure how it is in the US but here in Europe most of the forests are protected not only by the national law but also by the EU treatises. Cutting down trees in the forests is strictly regulated and the national parks are especially protected. Even cutting down single trees requires permission. When our local authorities decided to cut down a few old trees growing by the road because they posed danger to the traffic, they had to plant new trees in the place of old ones.

There are also some restrictions on fishing, attempts to limit emission of CO2 and segregation of rubbish. How effective those measures are on the global scale is disputable. Deforestation mainly takes place in poor and developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. There, the protection of environment is of secondary or no importance at all.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#106598 - 05/02/16 09:26 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Czereda]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: Czereda
I'm not sure how it is in the US but here in Europe most of the forests are protected not only by the national law but also by the EU treatises.


I've been in discussions like this in my travels with other people from Europe, Australia, and other places around the world. People seem to think there are a great number of differences between their countries and everywhere else, yet I doubt this greatly. In fact, the more I get to know about the world, the more I realize people and other countries adopt the same system, the same social conflicts, with varying degrees of misery and wealth. Most of these differences to my knowledge, are between the East and West. I think most western countries have the same cultural practices and beliefs.

For example, a lot of Europeans believe that America lets you express yourself more, but USCz feel the same way about Europe (nude beaches much?). Just an observation on my part. *These beliefs in false differences come from younger people, or any age who lack experience in study, travel, or insightful communication with people from different countries. My own knowledge is based on experience and long talks with people from the world over.

*With the 'globalization effect,' everybody is seeking a so called 'harmonized' culture. You have to ask people about their cultures and really dig into the history of each one to know the right questions to ask, or you can always cheat and throw in the word 'traditional' with your Q. Still, people won't always reveal their old fashioned traditional practices because they are afraid of being 'unappealing' to the greater world values. Whatever the hell those are.

*Certainly this doesn't apply to everyone. I've known people who love their traditions and culture, and do not want to leave the beautiful countrysides from whence they came. My own piece of the globe is quite fresh, lush and full of trees. Fresh air in abundance. Makes me kind of spoiled.

Cultural differences and similarities used to be a heavy interest of mine, now I am more focused on the intrinsic qualities of human life. Where the former was for me, about getting to understand other people and socialize, the present interest is more personal and self centred, hence my interest and studies into TLHP.


 Originally Posted By: Czereda
There are also some restrictions on fishing, attempts to limit emission of CO2 and segregation of rubbish. How effective those measures are on the global scale is disputable. Deforestation mainly takes place in poor and developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. There, the protection of environment is of secondary or no importance at all.


In Latin America, they have special emphasis on environmental preservation. I've been to some of these so called 'reserves.' The beaches are full to the brim, extending into the forests with garbage washed up from all around the world. It washes up into the creaks, on the ground in the jungle. It only goes in so far on land, but through the streams it goes all the way through the preserves, washed out back into the ocean on the other side.

These countries say they have a 'clean' standard. The eco label is not much more than a label. I am sure you guys know that, but my point is that it may be worse than you think.

The garbage is everywhere. The clean beaches are the tourist beaches. In fact, I wonder if they don't just have reserves made so they can save money on beach cleaning. You think about it, its a nice little conspiracy: Make 'untouchable' reserves, that way we only have to clean so many beaches and forests, and save money to build more tourist attractions.

None the less, the garbage is recorded being everywhere through The Amazon. You are also right about South America. Seems they take more action to keep deforestation a main priority than they do to preserve it. I wonder how much jungle we will have left in 10 years.

Better go see it while it lasts folks.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/02/16 09:38 PM)
Edit Reason: *edits
_________________________
https://youtu.be/8nW-IPrzM1g

Top
#106599 - 05/03/16 01:54 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
ungle.
The eco label is not much more than a label. I am sure you guys know that, but my point is that it may be worse than you think.


Are you talking about the "Eco" label concerning food ? or as a general marketing meme ? In either way, if you dig into that material you indeed open a can of worms, enough madness to write a separate post about that.

S.

Top
#106865 - 05/25/16 02:17 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Stick]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3300
 Originally Posted By: Naama
I had a friend (extremely intelligent man) - a scientific worker... He told me that inside "science" community a "biggest prostitution" is going on:
science workers and their bosses would do only certain researches and PURSUE only certain specific things,

Everyone has their own professional field. You can't expect a biologist to work on a nuclear reactor. His field of study does not permit it. It's only logical.

 Originally Posted By: CN
When I question the scientific method, I question who does the research, how its done, what information is kept, cut out, moulded, re-shaped to look like something else, who funds it, who gets hired, how those people and their influence change the information, who is going to publish the information, who is going to do more editing...

I wonder what the original data looks like before it is published into text books.

That's why there exists such a thing as "reproducibility" in the scientific method.
Or do you honestly believe only one study suffices in order for something to become valid. That would be quite.. naive.


There's a saying for the two of you.
"If you can't handle the heat..."
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#106868 - 05/25/16 12:01 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Dimitri]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
That's why there exists such a thing as "reproducibility" in the scientific method.
Or do you honestly believe only one study suffices in order for something to become valid. That would be quite.. naive.


Reproducibility isn't so much my point here. More and more these days, scientific facts are presented in an the format of an entertainment piece or opinionated/biased article format, where more time is spent on entertaining the reader's emotions, rather than educating one with information.

What I may not have mentioned concerns what data is left out from the final presentation. Maybe you could reproduce a study, but if someone leaves information out, or censors it, then your understanding of the original process is limited.

At your second point, I did not mention anything about 'one study', but yes Dimitri, it only takes one scientist, and one experiment to prove a fact. It does not take a consensus of scientists, or a any 'prestigious certificate of acceptance' to prove that we breath air.

People like to argue and debate morality, who's right and wrong, and the facts are usually afterthoughts, or only brought up when absolutely necessary for better persuasion. Facts by themselves are often boring, or at least presented in a raw context. Opinionated pieces with political/celebrity figures who weigh in their opinion on science is, for example, more entertaining than a long paper with hard-to-read words, graphs, data sets, and non-characterized technical writing.

Point is, facts are obvious. Who is going to argue a fact Dimitri? Let's see here...:

Dolphins swim in water. Let's hear some opinions.

People need to breath air. Let's have controversy...

Earth has water.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/25/16 12:04 PM)
_________________________
https://youtu.be/8nW-IPrzM1g

Top
#106869 - 05/25/16 12:45 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3300
 Originally Posted By: CN
At your second point, I did not mention anything about 'one study', but yes Dimitri, it only takes one scientist, and one experiment to prove a fact. It does not take a consensus of scientists, or a any 'prestigious certificate of acceptance' to prove that we breath air.

... You are an idiot.
Or badly educated if you learned this about the scientific method.

Before something becomes FACT it implies thorough testing. It implies repeated testing. It implies insurmountable data to be gathered and interpretated. Before something becomes fact you need a multitude of everything. Fact is not your fucking public opinion. In case you fail to understand: opinion=/= facts.

 Originally Posted By: CN

What I may not have mentioned concerns what data is left out from the final presentation. Maybe you could reproduce a study, but if someone leaves information out, or censors it, then your understanding of the original process is limited.

Then it is called a fucking opinion. Not a fact.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#106870 - 05/25/16 01:29 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CN
Reproducibility isn't so much my point here. More and more these days, scientific facts are presented in an the format of an entertainment piece or opinionated/biased article format, where more time is spent on entertaining the reader's emotions, rather than educating one with information.

What I may not have mentioned concerns what data is left out from the final presentation. Maybe you could reproduce a study, but if someone leaves information out, or censors it, then your understanding of the original process is limited.
You've filed your complaint with the wrong department. The prevalence of “adutation” is marketing’s bag, not engineering's. The same applies to the consumer in the manufacture of technology as in the manufacture of consent – caveat emptor. Nothing has changed in this regard. Scientists acquire the data by applying a method – the scientific method. The data is used in the synthesis of information; and it's a two way-street with that shit. Both presenters and consumers of this information are at liberty to determine what information is relevant and what isn't.

'Still barking up the wrong tree, man.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106871 - 05/25/16 02:19 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
Scientific method is perfect (no irony):
fact becomes a fact after the possibility of it, being otherwise,- is completely out ruled.

Never mind that science often (and more than often) states the obvious, banal, well-known, simple facts.
never mind that..!
still, its (science is) the best thing we have so far... (in terms of human progress of course).
So wont harp about just mentioned,
since these occasional pure moments of revelation (when science gets "real as hell") - are worth it.

........

The reason I opened this topic is because everyone basically needs to be ...fully aware of what is going on in reality.
(instead of having some "socially important concept" for an idol)

 Originally Posted By: Naama
all the scientific (eventual) "points"
so to say

are applied and placed onto our society always IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLITICAL AND ECONOMICAL INTERESTS OF LEGIT MAJORITY MAINSTREAM/GOVERNMENT


Edited by Naama (05/25/16 02:21 PM)
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
Page 2 of 4 <1234>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.041 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.