Dave Hawkins

I know more about physics than you do if you think we've arrived at a truly elementary particle.

Remember the atom? It's a Greek word meaning 'unsplittable' ... Boy were they wrong!

Breath

I have never thought of it this way, but it makes instant sense to me. Perhaps a scientist will call me a fucking idiot, but I can live with that.

Vicious Love

Yeah. And I honestly believe that you'd honestly love to believe her.

Simple reading comprehension, Breath. ck1 meant useful for progress in research, not necessarily applied science. Unfalsifiable speculation is not science because progress can never be made; it will never be more than an unevidenced conjecture. Which isn't to say any of the items on your list are without use as the basis for applied science, or are in any way escapable as consequences of applied science.

Thing is, Breath, it takes more than a grudging acceptance that science isn't completely useless to become a scientist. Y'need, you know... years of study. And intelligence.

I can understand how someone who knows absolutely nothing about physics might conclude the age of the universe is "metaphysical bullshit", but the age of the Earth? If you haven't examined the mountains upon mountains of evidence, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I already told you, ain't no one here but us anti-Semites and pedophiles.

No.

Dave Hawkins

Don't talk to me about 'falsifiability' unless you've read Popper. ALL of Popper. I have. Have you? Evolutionary biologists cannot have their cake and eat it too. Either they are engaging in falsifiable science (if so, Macroevolution as a theory HAS been falsified) or they are not (in which case the whole enterprise of Macroevolutionary theory is not science by THEIR OWN definitions). They cannot have it both ways.

Breath

Hey Vicious,

I quite like our exchanges. They are very clarifying to me. It seems you and me understand science to be different things. I take science to be a method, you take it to be a body of facts. As far as I am concerned, a baby who stands up and falls is conducting an experiment, as is the baby who stands up and stands up. You seem to think that a scientist is someone who is completely oblivious to the fact of their own standing up and falling down over time, and simply assumes an ideal body of "knowledge" as transmitted by their guru/lecturer. Yeah, right.

Yes, it is no doubt a matter of blame, and guilt. How Catholic.

Dave Hawkins

I agree. Matter itself requires some sort of supernatural explanation, which is simply an admission that we have no idea how it originated. Theorize away. Postulate the FSM if you like. Postulate aliens if you like. And postulate the God of the Bible if you like. And, Mr. NCSE and Mr. ACLU, don't tell me I can't postulate any of these things in the public classroom.

As for the practical value of postulating and investigating these things, I can make a list a mile long ... at least for the God of the Bible. I'm not sure I can give you any positive benefits for investigating the FSM or aliens though.

Dave Hawkins

Breath ... This describes many people here at IIDB perfectly. Couldn't have said it better. Hear, hear.

Vicious Love

I wasn't talking to you, Davey-boy. Pretty much everyone on these boards has given up on having an actual conversation or debate with you. I was considering pointing out the absurdity of your latest point, primarily for recreational purposes, but I'm both busy, tired, and a bit sick at the moment.

Sure you have.

Only The Logic of Scientific Discovery, The Open Society and Its Enemies, and a buncha brief, largely uninspired articles about him. It was all fairly meh.

See, idiocy like this is one of countless reasons no one takes you seriously. I sorta wish I had the time, energy, and lucidity to mock you, though.

See above.

improvius

Dave, we're discussing macroevolution and falsification in this thread.

Sarpedon

no comment, (flush)