View Single Post
  #581    
Old October 14th, 2012, 10:33 AM
AChipOffTheOldBrock's Avatar
AChipOffTheOldBrock
Too Legit To Quit
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NC
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Naughty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Went View Post
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "science". The idea of science is trying to give an explanation for a certain phenomenon that a) logically describes why it happens, b) predicts when it's going to happen again and c) fits every instance of the phenomenon, so there aren't any exceptions for a rule.

The point of this is that the explanation that fits all these requirements is the best accepted one. But, if for some reason, there is an instance of the phenomenon that doesn't follow the current laws, or the theory fails to predict an instance, or the logical chain the explanation is based upon is proved false, or if a new, more complete theory is found, the previous one will be discarded. As such, if you "blindly accept" what science says, you are doing it wrong, because science itself asks anybody who cares about it to constantly check the theories and try to disprove them. If they are logically disproven, science moves forward. If they aren't, they hold stronger as their certainty has overcame a challenge.

Of course, your regular Joe in the street doesn't have enough knowledge to try to disprove a theory, and that's why people rely on experts to do so. But, if the millions of scientists checking theories don't find anything seriously wrong about them, it's safe to say that they are as correct as they can get. On the other hand, if someone proves some theory wrong, the general consensus will shift. Just a handful of scientists (like the couple of hundreds who support creationism) will refuse to accept it. True science means that you can try to prove everyone wrong, as long as you accept to be proven wrong if your theories are successfully challenged. Of course, if a theory has remained unchallenged for centuries despite constant research, it is safe to accept it by default and use it as a jumpstart, even if it can be eventually be proven wrong.

But all of this has nothing to do with "going into space". That's not only science. That's not the work of "evil TV's". That's dozens of living people going there, and talking to other people, and bringing rocks and pictures and experiments. That's thousands of satellites there, predicting the weather, taking pictures of the Earth (from where could they be taken if there is nowhere outside of the Earth??). That's the GPS positioning system. That's thousands of rockets being sent into space by dozens of countries during several decades. If all of that is part of a conspiracy, boy howdy is that an extraordinary waste of time and resources for no apparent purpose, one nobody has properly uncovered yet 50 years later.

And even if the discussions between Religion (believe even if there is no evidence) and science (challenge everything you can as long as you have evidence) are somewhat relevant, we are getting offtopic here so I'll stop XD
I understand science in the way you explained it. I was talking about Adam Atheist(No offense intended. I am referring to the close minded condescending atheists that give atheists a bad name.) who sees something on TV which there is no proof for except that the news anchor says its scientifically proven and then mocks all those who dont believe it. And I guess Im just a conspiracy theorist then. Outer Space just doesnt make much sense to me. Maybe as I get older Ill see something that will make me come to believe in space but I refuse to have faith in the scientific community.
__________________
Reply With Quote