Trained To Be Fooled.

[Jack4jill]

Religion dominated society for many generations, yet it had no basis a scientific analogy..

What does this have to do with the previous post?

That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..

And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.

Not at all. I know what religion is used for, just as I know what science is used for...With humans participating in both fields, there will be flaws and fakers...

All religion is fake, and loved by stupid people of course.

 

[Si modo]

Good grief.

Stop playing at science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religion dominated society for many generations, yet it had no basis a scientific analogy..

What does this have to do with the previous post?

That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..

And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.

Not at all. I know what religion is used for, just as I know what science is used for...With humans participating in both fields, there will be flaws and fakers...

This is science:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



Bet you didn't know that.

 

[healthmyths]

Moynihan was The Last Intelligent Democrat.

Moynihan issued his research under the title The Negro Family: The Case For National Action, now commonly known as The Moynihan Report. Moynihan's report[10] fueled a debate over the proper course for government to take with regard to the economic underclass, especially blacks. Critics on the left attacked it as "blaming the victim",[11] a slogan coined by psychologist William Ryan.[12] Some suggested that Moynihan was propagating the views of racists[13] because much of the press coverage of the report focused on the discussion of children being born out of wedlock. Despite Moynihan's warnings, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program included rules for payments only if the "Man [was] out of the house."[citation needed] Critics said that the nation was paying poor women to throw their husbands out of the house. Moynihan supported Richard Nixon's idea of a Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI). Daniel Patrick Moynihan had significant discussions concerning a Basic Income Guarantee with Russell B. Long and Louis O. Kelso.

After the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress, Moynihan agreed that correction was needed for a welfare system that possibly encouraged women to raise their children without fathers: "The Republicans are saying we have a helluva problem, and we do."[14]

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. It is essential to separate what has come to be called 'science' from what really is science....or, rather, 'scientism.'


Scientism belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.


Philosopher Michael Devitt, to mention but one, continues to proclaim that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science!” http://12tuesday.com/discuss-an-interesting-quote-from-michael-devitt/


" The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.." Google






4. There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science has become, ...the term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' fact that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'

Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science,' but are actually elements of a political agenda. One proof of that claim is that, to be a Liberal, one pretty much must accept them, e.g., 'the debate is over.'


a. But none of 'em are scientific....

How anyone could believe that those aren't scientific is beyond me. You obviously don't know what science is!

Not a one is science.

Hence, you fit the title perfectly.

Appreciate your acquiescence.


Here...jot this down:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



I'd go with those definitions.

Religion is for people too stupid to understand science. There's no reason at all to engage with you.

I notice you didn't try to make an argument that the examples I gave as not science, were.

You must be too stupid, huh?

Anyone who thinks those things are not science is too uneducated to bother with. Ignorance at that level has no solution.

Still no defense of any of those issues I identified as not science?

So....we agree: you are stupid....and your earlier post was simply another version of the Liberal default: "is not, isss nootttttt!"

Excellent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science elaborates on what religion can not..

Since you insist on bringing in religion, you clearly have no knowledge of science, nor any way to dispute the OP.

Excellent.


BTW....
Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets"
Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN0-345-45040-X.


You do know who Stephen Gould was......

.....don't you?

 

[Jack4jill]

How anyone could believe that those aren't scientific is beyond me. You obviously don't know what science is!

Not a one is science.

Hence, you fit the title perfectly.

Appreciate your acquiescence.


Here...jot this down:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



I'd go with those definitions.

Religion is for people too stupid to understand science. There's no reason at all to engage with you.

I notice you didn't try to make an argument that the examples I gave as not science, were.

You must be too stupid, huh?

Anyone who thinks those things are not science is too uneducated to bother with. Ignorance at that level has no solution.

Still no defense of any of those issues I identified as not science?

So....we agree: you are stupid....and your earlier post was simply another version of the Liberal default: "is not, isss nootttttt!"

Excellent.

Science has to be taught but in your case there's no reason to bother. It's just beyond people like you.

 

[Moonglow]

Religion dominated society for many generations, yet it had no basis a scientific analogy..

What does this have to do with the previous post?

That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..

And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.

Not at all. I know what religion is used for, just as I know what science is used for...With humans participating in both fields, there will be flaws and fakers...

This is science:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



Bet you didn't know that.

Mathematics and logic helps to prove truth....When will Jesus alit for us?

 

[Si modo]

First of all, science never proves anything.

Secondly, the op-ed about science being broken uses psychology and their studies as an example as to why science is broken. Psychology is fucking social science and an embarrassment to most pure and applied scientists.

The more YOU play at analyzing science, the more YOU soil it like so many activists are doing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religion dominated society for many generations, yet it had no basis a scientific analogy..

What does this have to do with the previous post?

That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..

And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.

Not at all. I know what religion is used for, just as I know what science is used for...With humans participating in both fields, there will be flaws and fakers...

All religion is fake, and loved by stupid people of course.

But....but.....we just proved that you were too stupid to engage in this discussion.

Kind of obviates your post, doesn't it.

Oh...you'd better go look that word up.

 

[Moonglow]

Science elaborates on what religion can not..

Since you insist on bringing in religion, you clearly have no knowledge of science, nor any way to dispute the OP.

Excellent.


BTW....
Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets"
Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN0-345-45040-X.


You do know who Stephen Gould was......

.....don't you?

I am disputing you, not your cut-n-paste job..Stephen, yes, I know of him..

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does this have to do with the previous post?

That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..

And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.

Not at all. I know what religion is used for, just as I know what science is used for...With humans participating in both fields, there will be flaws and fakers...

This is science:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



Bet you didn't know that.

Mathematics and logic helps to prove truth....When will Jesus alit for us?

Have someone explain post #26 to you.

 

[Si modo]

What point are you trying to make, PoliticalChic.

 

[Jack4jill]

What does this have to do with the previous post?

That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..

And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.

Not at all. I know what religion is used for, just as I know what science is used for...With humans participating in both fields, there will be flaws and fakers...

All religion is fake, and loved by stupid people of course.

But....but.....we just proved that you were too stupid to engage in this discussion.

Kind of obviates your post, doesn't it.

Oh...you'd better go look that word up.

There is no discussion of science possible with someone who rejects evolution. You might as well be rejecting the idea that fire is hot and can burn you.

 

[Moonglow]

What point are you trying to make, PoliticalChic.

She's doing her usual, take 15 pages to get to the point thread...

 

[PoliticalChic]

First of all, science never proves anything.

Secondly, the op-ed about science being broken uses psychology and their studies as an example as to why science is broken. Psychology is fucking social science and an embarrassment to most pure and applied scientists.

The more YOU play at analyzing science, the more YOU soil it like so many activists are doing.

"First of all, science never proves anything."

So...you do not subscribe to the Scientific Method.....nor to this:

" The central theme in scientific methodis that all evidence must beempiricalwhich means it is based on evidence. In scientific methodthe word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.Empirical data is produced byexperiment and observation.." Google


Now stop being silly.

 

[Moonglow]

That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..

And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.

Not at all. I know what religion is used for, just as I know what science is used for...With humans participating in both fields, there will be flaws and fakers...

This is science:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



Bet you didn't know that.

Mathematics and logic helps to prove truth....When will Jesus alit for us?

Have someone explain post #26 to you.

Not true, as religion has tried to explain what science has...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science elaborates on what religion can not..

Since you insist on bringing in religion, you clearly have no knowledge of science, nor any way to dispute the OP.

Excellent.


BTW....
Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets"
Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN0-345-45040-X.


You do know who Stephen Gould was......

.....don't you?

I am disputing you, not your cut-n-paste job..Stephen, yes, I know of him..

Not 'cut and paste,' the term you Liberals use to avoid dealing with the facts provided.

My posts are 'cut, paste, and attribute.'


Hence....not my words alone that you are attempting to ignore.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.

Not at all. I know what religion is used for, just as I know what science is used for...With humans participating in both fields, there will be flaws and fakers...

This is science:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



Bet you didn't know that.

Mathematics and logic helps to prove truth....When will Jesus alit for us?

Have someone explain post #26 to you.

Not true, as religion has tried to explain what science has...

Hmmm.....so you are disputing Gould's thesis?

Interesting....Gould, considered a giant in the field....you, a cockroach.

I believe I'll go with Gould on this one point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..

And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.

Not at all. I know what religion is used for, just as I know what science is used for...With humans participating in both fields, there will be flaws and fakers...

All religion is fake, and loved by stupid people of course.

But....but.....we just proved that you were too stupid to engage in this discussion.

Kind of obviates your post, doesn't it.

Oh...you'd better go look that word up.

There is no discussion of science possible with someone who rejects evolution. You might as well be rejecting the idea that fire is hot and can burn you.

"There is no discussion" because you are stupid.

How many times must that be observed?