PDA

View Full Version : Science is completely objective...no really



Chantress
8th March 07, 11:06 PM
So I work in the medical field. I currently record sleep studies and do some rudimentary diagnonsis and treatment of sleeping disorders. I am studying to take the BRPT exam, which would allow me to go much farther with my career. I came across this passage in a book I was studying, and wanted to share it with you.

It is very difficult today in 2004, to understand and appreciate the exceedingly controversial nature of these findings. The following note from a more personal account illustrates both the power and the danger of scientific dogma. "I wrote them [the findings] up, but the paper was nearly impossible to publish because it was completely contradictory to the totally dominant neurophysiological theory of the time. The assertion by me that an activated EEG could be associated with unambiguous sleep was considered to be absurd. As it turned out, previous investigators had observed an activated EEG during sleep in cats but simply could not believe it and ascribed it to arousing influences during sleep. A colleague who was assisting me was sufficiently skeptical that he preferred that I publish the paper as sole author. After four or five rejections, to my everlasting gratitude, Editor-in-Chief Herbert Jasper accepted the paper without revision for publication in Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology"
This huge advance in sleep medicine completely changed how we study sleep today, yet was by and large rejected by the scientific community becuase it flew in the face of all that had been known up to this point about sleep. Up until this time sleep had been seen largely as just a state of inactivity where the body rested. There were no stages of sleep and dreaming was typically attributed to anxiety rather than to being a normal function of a bodily cycle.

Interesting. I though Science was supposed to be wholely objective?! I guess the religion that Science is turning into really is no different than the religion that others have used for thousands of years. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

WarPhalange
8th March 07, 11:11 PM
Interesting. I though Science was supposed to be wholely objective?! I guess the religion that Science is turning into really is no different than the religion that others have used for thousands of years. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Science IS completely objective. What were the results? The same the first time through as the second time, only that the first time through it was ignored.

Science is objective. Scientists are regular people who can be just as stupid as religious people. Sometimes they are one and the same. That makes baby Galileo cry. There are plenty of those people abound, and they NEED to be dragged out and shot. The second you close your mind to evidence, you stop being a scientist.

What is really interesting is that you are supposedly going into science without even knowing these things. Maybe you should quit.

Chantress
8th March 07, 11:18 PM
I also find it interesting to point out that Mr. Hawking points to Einstien doing this very same thing to his own theories and called it his greatest mistake. You can read it in "A Briefer History of Time". A book that I highly reccomend. The part where Mr. Hawking addresses the existence of God is particularly interesting.

Chantress
8th March 07, 11:23 PM
Science IS completely objective. What were the results? The same the first time through as the second time, only that the first time through it was ignored.

Science is objective. Scientists are regular people who can be just as stupid as religious people. Sometimes they are one and the same. That makes baby Galileo cry. There are plenty of those people abound, and they NEED to be dragged out and shot. The second you close your mind to evidence, you stop being a scientist.

What is really interesting is that you are supposedly going into science without even knowing these things. Maybe you should quit.

Hate to destroy this paradigm that you have built up for yourself about me, but I have been working with in and around science for quite some time. I have seen from the inside exactly how "objective" science is and thus far it has continually reaffirmed my belief in God.

WarPhalange
8th March 07, 11:32 PM
I also find it interesting to point out that Mr. Hawking points to Einstien doing this very same thing to his own theories and called it his greatest mistake. You can read it in "A Briefer History of Time". A book that I highly reccomend. The part where Mr. Hawking addresses the existence of God is particularly interesting.

Yes. Einstein didn't like the idea of quantum physics because things were random, and they shouldn't be. Oddly enough, he helped start quantum physics with his explanation of the photoelectric effect.

And you have to look deeper into it: Eintstein was right. So is quantum mechanics.

The problem? They contradict each other. That's why Einstein held this view for his theories. They ARE correct. The problem is, they don't work for very small scales, only very big ones. Quantum mechanics, however, only works for very small scales, and not on large ones. That's what's so confusing, and that's where Mr. Hawking comes in: his goal has been to try to find a theory that explains why they only work on those scales and nothing else. He successfully explained how black holes still radiate information via quantum mechanics and eventually evaporate. But there's still much to be explained.

In conclusion: you read a book for laymen, barely understood it, and use it to bolster your own ideas. Congratulations, you are doing the very thing you are complaining about.

Chantress
8th March 07, 11:41 PM
I actually understood it quite well. While it is certainly not my main line of scientific interest it was rather light reading for me really. Then again, I guess you wouldnt know anything about that since you just keep trying to put me in that "ohh he is just a dumb Christian" hole in your mind. Funny that you have physics listed as your religion. You keep ignoring obvious facts that disprove your beliefs, but you lay beholden to what you have always thought. Never mind, I guess ti is comletely consistent after all.

WarPhalange
8th March 07, 11:45 PM
Err... what?

I also have "Librarian" listed in my political field.

Obvious facts that disprove my beliefs? What facts? Moreover... what beliefs?

I'm dead serious here. I want to know what you are talking about. This is amusing.

bob
9th March 07, 12:00 AM
So I work in the medical field. I currently record sleep studies and do some rudimentary diagnonsis and treatment of sleeping disorders. I am studying to take the BRPT exam, which would allow me to go much farther with my career. I came across this passage in a book I was studying, and wanted to share it with you.



This huge advance in sleep medicine completely changed how we study sleep today, yet was by and large rejected by the scientific community becuase it flew in the face of all that had been known up to this point about sleep. Up until this time sleep had been seen largely as just a state of inactivity where the body rested. There were no stages of sleep and dreaming was typically attributed to anxiety rather than to being a normal function of a bodily cycle.

Interesting. I though Science was supposed to be wholely objective?! I guess the religion that Science is turning into really is no different than the religion that others have used for thousands of years. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

As Poops said, 'science' is objective, people are imperfect. The story illustrates to me that the weight of evidence eventually overcame human intellectual inertia regarding contrary ideas.

You draw a parallel with religious dogma but the difference is that science will eventually overcome inertia if the weight of evidence exists, even if there is a natural resistance to change. Religion is based on faith, not evidence.

Chantress
9th March 07, 12:04 AM
Perhaps reading comprehension would help you. I never mentioned your politics but your religion instead, where you do in fact have Physics listed.


In conclusion: you read a book for laymen, barely understood it, and use it to bolster your own ideas. Congratulations, you are doing the very thing you are complaining about.



I actually understood it quite well. While it is certainly not my main line of scientific interest it was rather light reading for me really.

Pointing out a very few in the myriad of times that people practicing science have been wrong is not repeating the same mistake. I am not saying that because they were wrong all science is wrong. I am however pointing to the observed fact that Science, no matter how much you would like to believe different, is not wholely objective.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 12:06 AM
Let me explain this to you in another way.

Right now I am taking a mathematical physics course. The whole premise of the course is that there are easier ways to solve clusterfuck hard physics problems. The ways require learning new mathematics. Mathematics that are by design made to work perfectly every time. It works for you. The only time you get an answer wrong is if YOU do the math wrong. The math isn't broken, the person is.

This sounds an aweful lot like "God is perfect, man isn't", right? But the difference is that any man or woman can be a good scientist, as long as you aren't afraid to be wrong and admit it. That's what peer review is for. Even if the field is full of narcissistic dicks, correct theories will, like bornsceptic said, rise above the shitty ones due to overwhelming evidence. The science ends up working.

Whereas how far has religion gotten us?

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 12:09 AM
Perhaps reading comprehension would help you. I never mentioned your politics but your religion instead, where you do in fact have Physics listed.

Perhaps not being a total idiot would help you. I pointed out that I have "librarian" as my politics field. Clearly that means it's a joke. By extending that idea, you can see that my religion field is a joke, too. Not sure? Then take a look at any thread with religion, where I lambast it.



Pointing out a very few in the myriad of times that people practicing science have been wrong is not repeating the same mistake. I am not saying that because they were wrong all science is wrong. I am however pointing to the observed fact that Science, no matter how much you would like to believe different, is not wholely objective.

Science is a mechanism. It is designed to work if the people don't fuck it up. Seriously, you're basically saying a PC is shit because when you gave it a bad command, it didn't execute it.

Chantress
9th March 07, 12:17 AM
As Poops said, 'science' is objective, people are imperfect. The story illustrates to me that the weight of evidence eventually overcame human intellectual inertia regarding contrary ideas.

You draw a parallel with religious dogma but the difference is that science will eventually overcome inertia if the weight of evidence exists, even if there is a natural resistance to change. Religion is based on faith, not evidence.

Science like Religion is only as good as the people that promote it; unfortunately for them both.

You make the point that science will eventually change with the weight of the evidence, and imply that religion will not. I would beg to differ with you as change in religion can be easily seen throughout time both in Christianity and in all other major religions. Take Islam for example. It was at one time a wholely bloody religion convering people solely based upon conquest of other nations. Today it is 90% peaceful. The same could easily be said of Christianity and its many denominations that all have what could be called changing faith(especially when veiwed on a timeline).

Like it or not, the more science becomes "nonreligous" the more it becomes a religion. Take for example global warming. If I were to publicly question global warming based upon the preponderance of evidence I would be figuratively tarred and feathered. Yet the evidence for global warming has only been collected over the last hundred years or so and only reflects a .6 degree warming of the planet over that time. (On a side note i find it hilarious that it is snowing in New York almost every time they hold a conference on global warming at the UN. You would think someone would be smart enough to schedule those things in the summer...nevermind, its the UN) In similar fashion if a scientist tries to prove something in any religion to be false he is regarded as a heretic or infidel by that religion.

Science is not science as long as it has hacks that beat down any alternative view points or people who question what are arguably questionable conclusions.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 12:24 AM
You make the point that science will eventually change with the weight of the evidence, and imply that religion will not. I would beg to differ with you as change in religion can be easily seen throughout time both in Christianity and in all other major religions. Take Islam for example. It was at one time a wholely bloody religion convering people solely based upon conquest of other nations. Today it is 90% peaceful. The same could easily be said of Christianity and its many denominations that all have what could be called changing faith(especially when veiwed on a timeline).

Let me make this clear:

Science is after facts.

Religion is a belief.

Even though Islam was bloody before and isn't now, that doesn't change the fact that the laws of science have stayed exactly the same. Did people agree on what those laws were? No, and they still don't. But they haven't changed*.

By your logic, I could say art is like science, because art has changed over the years. No, you dumbass. Change isn't enough. The purpose of science is inherently different than that of Judeo-Christian/Islamic religion.

Science: We have no fucking clue what's going on... let's find out!

Religion: I know EXACTLY what is going on. If you don't listen to me, I WILL FUCKING KILL YOU!!

*One of the far-out theories of physics are suggesting that maybe the laws of physics might change over time and at different places. Clearly there's no evidence for that at the moment.


Like it or not, the more science becomes "nonreligous" the more it becomes a religion. Take for example global warming. If I were to publicly question global warming based upon the preponderance of evidence I would be figuratively tarred and feathered. Yet the evidence for global warming has only been collected over the last hundred years or so and only reflects a .6 degree warming of the planet over that time. (On a side note i find it hilarious that it is snowing in New York almost every time they hold a conference on global warming at the UN. You would think someone would be smart enough to schedule those things in the summer...nevermind, its the UN) In similar fashion if a scientist tries to prove something in any religion to be false he is regarded as a heretic or infidel by that religion.

Science is not science as long as it has hacks that beat down any alternative view points or people who question what are arguably questionable conclusions.

This comment is going to be completely ignored. You said some shit about global warming and then mentioned "hurr hurr snow am not global warm!!" completely ignoring the fact that the proper term is "climate change", because some areas of the world will get colder. It's just that the AVERAGE temperature will rise.

bob
9th March 07, 12:34 AM
You make the point that science will eventually change with the weight of the evidence, and imply that religion will not. I would beg to differ with you as change in religion can be easily seen throughout time both in Christianity and in all other major religions. Take Islam for example. It was at one time a wholely bloody religion convering people solely based upon conquest of other nations. Today it is 90% peaceful. The same could easily be said of Christianity and its many denominations that all have what could be called changing faith(especially when veiwed on a timeline).


The faith has not changed. People still worship the same gods that they did. Society has changed. As a whole, society has become more 'civilized' and also more secular. Coincidence?


Like it or not, the more science becomes "nonreligous" the more it becomes a religion. Take for example global warming. If I were to publicly question global warming based upon the preponderance of evidence I would be figuratively tarred and feathered.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here, given that the 'preponderance of evidence' is that global warming is a reality. How exactly would you argue against it based of the evidence, given that fact? Faith?




Science is not science as long as it has hacks that beat down any alternative view points or people who question what are arguably questionable conclusions.


Are you arguing that science will never be viable unless 100% of the people who profess to practice it are paragons? Arguably questionable conclusions are always argued, often quite heatedly. Arguments will always take place, using evidence, rather than faith, to support differing viewpoints. Because scientific knowledge is in a state of constant flux doesn't mean that science is wrong.

Don't you see that the essential difference is the method in which the debate is conducted? If I argue Allah vs. Buddah, there is no resolution to the debate, but if I argue Big Bang vs. Cosmic Fireball, although the resolution may be a long way off, it's eventually going to come when we can gather enough evidence.

You're attacking science because people question things. That may be difficult for you to accept if you come from a background where dogma is laid down and accepted but I'm afraid that the reason it happens is because it works, and has been shown to work, over and over again.

Chantress
9th March 07, 12:35 AM
So then we are agreeing that true scientist and people of true religion have not only a lot in common, but everything in common when it comes to integrity.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 12:38 AM
Integrity is all they have in common. In fact I remember when I was a kid getting ready to go to Communion, the priest that walked me through it all was a very cool guy. Really down to Earth, nice, not an asshole. Do I believe (now) that his beliefs were (he's dead. :( ) bullshit? You bet. Do I hate the guy? No. I still wouldn't mind talking to him. Just not about religion.

Chantress
9th March 07, 12:40 AM
Ignoring something because I used a term that has only been changed in the last 12 to 24 months is assanine. I completely understand that global climate change is a reality. The ice ages and geological column support this. The alleged fact that man has any real impact on it is what is in question. Anyone who questions mans impact on it is immediately written off, much like you just did.

bob
9th March 07, 12:42 AM
Ignoring something because I used a term that has only been changed in the last 12 to 24 months is assanine. I completely understand that global climate change is a reality. The ice ages and geological column support this. The alleged fact that man has any real impact on it what is in question. Anyone who questions man impact on it immediately written off, much like you just did.

Anyone who questions the fact is pointed to the evidence in favour of it and invited to produce alternate evidence.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 12:42 AM
Just like anyone who questions the heliocentric theory of our solar system is immediately written off, yes.

Chantress
9th March 07, 12:50 AM
Evidence

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15726

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

I can get more, if you like.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 12:56 AM
First article: Written in 2002. That's 5 years old. Next.

Second article: NCPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

Convservative think tank. Get that shit out of here.

Heartland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

I don't even know what the fuck that last one is. "Globar warming isn't so bad! Wouldn't you want a warmer winter so you don't freeze?"

They don't even understand that it would be climate change and lots of places would get colder.

Do you even know what science is?

bob
9th March 07, 01:00 AM
Evidence

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15726

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

I can get more, if you like.


Umm, three industry think tanks and the 'association of british drivers' vs. 90% of scientists?

Chantress
9th March 07, 01:00 AM
NCPA founded at the University of Dallas

5 years old does not make it wrong, perhaps you should come up with something substantial

Heartland is a research institution. You disagreeing with its conservative background does not make it wrong.

Stop posting paper tigers please. They only waste time.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 01:03 AM
NCPA founded at the University of Dallas

And funded by corporations that don't like the idea of global warming being a reality.


5 years old does not make it wrong, perhaps you should come up with something substantial.

Are you for real? Take a look at that exerpt you posted. When was that big discovery made? Was research from 5 years ago wrong? Yes.

5 years is the difference between research and current research.


Heartland is a research institution. You disagreeing with its conservative background does not make it wrong.

Stop posting paper tigers please. They only waste time.

You're a waste of time. Heartland higher-ups are lobbyists for Exxon and GM. Are you really that fucking stupid?

AAAhmed46
9th March 07, 01:03 AM
THere is a difference between SCIENCE and SCIENCTISTS.

SCIENCE is objective.

SCIENTISTS are not.

bob
9th March 07, 01:08 AM
NCPA founded at the University of Dallas

5 years old does not make it wrong, perhaps you should come up with something substantial

Heartland is a research institution. You disagreeing with its conservative background does not make it wrong.

Stop posting paper tigers please. They only waste time.

* sigh *

Ok, if you really want to debate climate change, start a thread about it and we can have it out there. You can play the spoiling game until the cows come home. See, with the wonders of Google, you'll always be able to put something up that supports your argument. The point is (and I'll type this slowly so it gets through)

The. Overwhelming. Weight. Of. Evidence. Supports. The. Hypothesis. Climate. Change. Is. Man. Made. And. A. Serious. Potential. Problem.

Almost all the studies that 'debunk' it have a vested economic interest in the situation. Go to a pro tobacco site and look up the 'evidence' they have there, you'll notcie a startling similarity to what you've just posted.

The arguments against climate change have gone something like this over the past decade or so...

- it doesnt' exist
- ok, it does exist but we didn't cause it
- ok, maybe we caused it but it's not going to be a big problem
- ok, well it'll be a problem sure, but it's too expensive to solve and we could put our money to better use elsewhere

I eagerly await the next phase.

Dagon Akujin
9th March 07, 01:30 AM
No, seriously. Was someone actually dumb enough to post all that? No, no. Seriously? Science = religion?

No, I mean, yeah, that's retarded.

jubei33
9th March 07, 04:47 AM
science might be considered a religion for some people, but generally those are ones who don't understand it and never had a serious use for it in the first place, beyond trying to argue their own petty, self important issues.

DAYoung
9th March 07, 04:55 AM
Science isn't objective, but it's as close as we get.

Osiris
9th March 07, 07:36 AM
Before I even address the issue at hand, what the fuck parallel dimension are you guys from where Christianity and Islam are examples of peaceful, reformed religions and not blowing the shit out of eachother every few yea... erm, da.. erm hours?

Now, as far as this issue goes, I think it shows more than anything that the process IS objective. His shit flew in the face of everything. After some reluctance, it was given a fair shake. That sounds about as good as we could possibly expect. You were expecting them to drop everything based on one report? Hardly reasonable.

MartialArtN00b
9th March 07, 11:27 AM
This huge advance in sleep medicine completely changed how we study sleep today, yet was by and large rejected by the scientific community becuase it flew in the face of all that had been known up to this point about sleep. Up until this time sleep had been seen largely as just a state of inactivity where the body rested. There were no stages of sleep and dreaming was typically attributed to anxiety rather than to being a normal function of a bodily cycle.

Im pretty sure i read about this in carl sagan's dragon of eden where he talked about different cycles of sleep and why we dream and on which cycle we dream, etc... Considering this was published a few decades ago, and that the book won the pulitzer, im a bit confused...

Zendetta
9th March 07, 03:55 PM
Science isn't objective, but it's as close as we get.

Great Point. I think a more operationally-correct version of "Science is Objective so STFU!" is something like: "Use of the scientific method consistently yields more objective results than Republicanism/Marxism/Voodoo/Hare Krishna/Nigerian Email Scams/ etc etc".


I think what Chantress is trying to be able to try to say is that science is objective-ish, but it's results still have to pass thru the highly subjective world-views of the very human practitioners. Fair enough.

And then Chantress does a powerful job proving the point by listing some pro-petrol industry flaks trying to dispute climate change. Bravo!


Meanwhile, PoopLoops has been awarded his Phd for his thesis on the Grand Unified Theory of why Chantress needs to Shut the Fuck Up, or Science has Peer Review, Religion has The Inquisition.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 04:58 PM
Im pretty sure i read about this in carl sagan's dragon of eden where he talked about different cycles of sleep and why we dream and on which cycle we dream, etc... Considering this was published a few decades ago, and that the book won the pulitzer, im a bit confused...

We don't know which article Chantress is talking about, so it's quite possible that Sagan wrote his book based off of it. He wasn't a sleep scientist, so I don't know why he would make his own research or conclusions.

DAYoung
9th March 07, 05:02 PM
Meanwhile, PoopLoops has been awarded his Phd for his thesis on the Grand Unified Theory of why Chantress needs to Shut the Fuck Up, or Science has Peer Review, Religion has The Inquisition.

It was the last line that had me laughing.

Question!
9th March 07, 07:24 PM
I think that Nigerian email scams have yielded some pretty objective results.

Chantress
9th March 07, 09:39 PM
We don't know which article Chantress is talking about, so it's quite possible that Sagan wrote his book based off of it. He wasn't a sleep scientist, so I don't know why he would make his own research or conclusions.

My apologies. I am 99% certain I had it cited as a quote, but it must have been accidentally altered somehow. The quote is from the following, and pardon me if it is not in MLA format, or whatever version you prefer.

Kryger, Roth, Dement; Principle and Practices of Sleep Medicine; 4th ed. 2005 page 6

The work is authored by 3 people.

Meir H Kryger, MD, FRCPC
Thomas Roth, PhD
William C Dement, MD, PhD

They are all leading professionals in the realm of sleep science.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 10:04 PM
That's nice. I was simply saying that Sagan might have used their work to write his book. But since he's been dead for over a decade now, he must have gotten his info from somewhere else or it was on a different topic.

Judah Maccabee
10th March 07, 12:31 PM
Hey, you do sleep studies? I used to work in the main office of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine / Association of Polysomnographic Technicians.

I probably handled your membership renewal.

Chantress
11th March 07, 08:44 PM
Wow, small world. You have not handled mine. I'm about to sit for the BRPT. After I pass it I will then go on to register with them. Just never saw the need to be a member when the guy I work with that does all of our scoring is already a member.

Why did you stop working there?

polishillusion
11th March 07, 08:58 PM
Thread Cliffnotes -

People are idiots, science and religion have nothing to do with it.

WarPhalange
11th March 07, 09:30 PM
Thread Cliffnotes -

People are idiots, science and religion have nothing to do with it.

Tell that to Scientologists.

Stick
11th March 07, 09:44 PM
Here's the deal.

In the coming centuries science will cure cancer, AIDS, innumerable diseases and conditions plaguing us today. Science will take us back the moon, to Mars, and well beyond. Science will, all things considered, improve our species.

Religion will not, at all, ever.


Stop posting paper tigers please. They only waste time.

Pot-kettle, lol.

DAYoung
11th March 07, 09:47 PM
Dai, it gets worse.

Some of the scientists who cure diseases and develop space travel will be Christians. And they'll thank religion for their diligence, talent and unshakable faith in a better world.

And in some cases, they'll be right - behind their stellar efforts (figurative and literal) will be their faith.

Stick
11th March 07, 09:50 PM
Mmmmm, delusional vaccines taste delusional.

For some people, faith can be a good thing, a positive driving force. I must agree with you.

However religion itself does none of those things- advance our species-, and while science is an absolute requirement to that progress faith is not. If anything, of late organized religion is activly retarding human progress.

WarPhalange
11th March 07, 09:52 PM
Actually, it can get worse. Science could also develop new ways of completely destroying our species, such as creating super viruses via vaccinations to prevent regular ones, and of course, super bombs. There is no guarantee that science will be mankind's savior. Scientists might be smart, but intelligence isn't a requirement to use science.

Stick
11th March 07, 09:57 PM
I didn't want to think about that part, I wanted to be highly partial and subjective.

And if anyone's going to use science to kill us all, my monisy' on an ignorant primate with faith in an invisible, angry beard in the sky.

You heard me.

I REGRET NOTHING!

/self detonates

Chantress
11th March 07, 10:09 PM
Here's the deal.

In the coming centuries science will cure cancer, AIDS, innumerable diseases and conditions plaguing us today. Science will take us back the moon, to Mars, and well beyond. Science will, all things considered, improve our species.

Religion will not, at all, ever.



Pot-kettle, lol.

You post operates on a false premise. That is that religion is supposed to do any of these things.

Science can do many things, and has for mankind. If we want to see what science without religion can look like turn to Joseph Mengele. This is not to say that it always or inevitably will, but that it certainly can. I agree with Einstein when he said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Personally I believe they are both necessary parts for the beneficial advancement of humankind.

DAYoung
11th March 07, 10:22 PM
You're not attacking blind people now, are you?

CHRISTIANS ARE SO PREJUDICIAL.

WarPhalange
11th March 07, 11:40 PM
You post operates on a false premise. That is that religion is supposed to do any of these things.

Science can do many things, and has for mankind. If we want to see what science without religion can look like turn to Joseph Mengele. This is not to say that it always or inevitably will, but that it certainly can. I agree with Einstein when he said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Personally I believe they are both necessary parts for the beneficial advancement of humankind.

lol? You're citing a sadistic Nazi as an example of what can happen when science doesn't have religion?

Not to mention, nearly all of his experiments hardly had anything to do with science. i.e. it wasn't "We want XXXX to happen. Let's see if doing YYYY while isolating everything else will make it happen." It was "Let's see how loud he screams when I do this."

ICY
12th March 07, 12:08 AM
If I had the power, I would do what Mengele did, only to Christians...American Christians.

WarPhalange
12th March 07, 01:11 AM
I don't have it in me to hurt people like that. That's why I want to be a scientist, not a business man.

Judah Maccabee
12th March 07, 02:01 AM
Wow, small world. You have not handled mine. I'm about to sit for the BRPT. After I pass it I will then go on to register with them. Just never saw the need to be a member when the guy I work with that does all of our scoring is already a member.

Why did you stop working there?

Combination of being fired and disinterest once they shitcanned my research position and stuck me in a clerical one.

Chantress
12th March 07, 05:16 AM
You're not attacking blind people now, are you?

CHRISTIANS ARE SO PREJUDICIAL.


Absolutely! Them and their dogs too!

Zendetta
12th March 07, 01:04 PM
Absolutely! Them and their dogs too!

Now, that was funny.

But I'm willing to bet that Mengele was Christian, probably Lutheran or Catholic.

WarPhalange
12th March 07, 01:07 PM
Not to mention, nobody does things in the name of the non-God.

Zendetta
12th March 07, 01:11 PM
Except ThaiBoxerKen.

WarPhalange
12th March 07, 01:19 PM
Yeah, but he's short, so it's different.

Zendetta
12th March 07, 01:22 PM
He's a dwarf - they are naturally resistant to magic, you know.

Sun Wukong
12th March 07, 02:34 PM
Very good point, +1 saves against magical beliefs go a long way.

Sun Wukong
12th March 07, 02:34 PM
... to promote ATHEISM!

Kiko
12th March 07, 06:09 PM
Not to mention, nobody does things in the name of the non-God.
What about Michael Newdow?

WarPhalange
12th March 07, 06:46 PM
He's not promoting the non-God. He's demoting all other gods.

He's also a jackass.

WarPhalange
12th March 07, 06:48 PM
Plus, he belongs to some sort of "Universal Life Church".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow

So he's really just an agnostic loser.

Dagon Akujin
12th March 07, 09:08 PM
If we want to see what science without religion can look like turn to Joseph Mengele...

Religion: (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1214920&postcount=106)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/Hitler-with-Muller.jpg


Plus, he belongs to some sort of "Universal Life Church".



I'm a pastor in the Universal Life Church. LOL. (http://www.ulc.net/index.php?page=ordain)

Dagon

Robot Jesus
13th March 07, 12:54 AM
as am I, but i have a formalized religion with me at its head as well. I win

MaverickZ
13th March 07, 08:30 AM
http://xkcd.com/store/try_science_shirt_300.png
http://xkcd.com/store/science_shirt_front_thumb.png

Chantress
13th March 07, 10:47 AM
Religion: (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1214920&postcount=106)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/Hitler-with-Muller.jpg



I'm a pastor in the Universal Life Church. LOL. (http://www.ulc.net/index.php?page=ordain)

Dagon

Interesting picture...where is Mengele in it again. I am afraid I missed him.

WarPhalange
13th March 07, 10:59 AM
Your ignorance knows no bounds! It is very comical.

That's fucking Hitler. You know, the guy who even let Mengele do all that shit?

ICY
13th March 07, 01:15 PM
http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_wing/assets/room1/spanish_inquisition_court.jpg

http://www.hungersbrides.com/images/inq_dunce_cap_left.jpg

http://www.inquisition.pp.ru/images/torture/torture-05.jpg

http://www.reformation.org/inquisition-rack.jpg
She and her baby were burned at the stake

http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif

http://www.iwchildren.org/hatemail/klan1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1a/Hitlerspope.jpg/180px-Hitlerspope.jpg

http://www.remnantofgod.org/NaziRCC/hitler-rcc4.bmp

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/images/hale.jpg

http://www.publiceye.org/gallery/racism/Klassen2.gif

RELGIOUS PEOPLE NEVER DO ANYTHING WRONG!!!!1!!

Seraphim
13th March 07, 02:01 PM
Hey Cracky..isn't about time you stuck your head in a toilet?

WarPhalange
13th March 07, 03:04 PM
Uhoh, I smell a Christian who hasn't gotten his dose of Jesus Juice today!

Question!
13th March 07, 03:08 PM
What exactly is Jesus Juice?

Seraphim
13th March 07, 03:09 PM
Uhoh, I smell a Christian who hasn't gotten his dose of Jesus Juice today!

I expected funny from you...and this is what you bring?

Seraphim
13th March 07, 03:09 PM
What exactly is Jesus Juice?

Michael Jackson says it wine...usually in a coke bottle that he is trying to offer to a child.

Question!
13th March 07, 03:31 PM
Ah yes, now I remember that story, no wonder it sounded familiar.

WarPhalange
13th March 07, 03:45 PM
I expected funny from you...and this is what you bring?

You don't deserve funny.

Seraphim
13th March 07, 04:08 PM
You don't deserve funny.


THX was always funnier then you.

WarPhalange
13th March 07, 04:44 PM
That's why I'm posting instead of him.

Seraphim
13th March 07, 04:55 PM
That's why I'm posting instead of him.


Meh...3/10.

WarPhalange
13th March 07, 05:10 PM
Exactly.

Seraphim
13th March 07, 07:13 PM
Exactly.


I believe you may have that I was speaking in regards to the images Cracky posted. This is not the case.

I was not offened by the images, nor was I posting in response to them. Every time I see Cracky, I want to remind him how much of a douce he is.