Science!
The question is whether all the evidence of science, you can believe and accept the truth, or should be questioned?Example: scientists have proved that consumption of cholesterol in the human body is harmful to health,and then denied that it is not.When they refuted the opposite....
Randomness is a scientific argument?
Until a new refutation of it is possible to consider it the truth.
All science is built on theories and speculation. If there is any new evidence the old one will be deprecated.
This is one of the reasons for the war veruny with science.
Recochica
That is, the scientist can be allowed to make mistakes?
And what about chance?
Nevoeiro
You bots-their slaves better control, and then look to what already came, fools: http://forums.playground.ru/talk/society/vse_ateisty_8212_zhivotnye-942725/
Look carefully.
Nevoeiro wrote:
The question is whether all the evidence of science, you can believe and accept the truth, or should be questioned?
If you take some smart book, you can figure out what that discovery is a specific person here. Here Newton's laws discovered by Newton (although in fact just formulated would work even without their so-called open).
But if you uncle with the TV says that Scientists have discovered a new unicellular organism and called it Novoeiro that dead languages is translated as rectal self-organized, then I would not jump to believe, because the scientists - is a collective image behind which you can hide any fiction, albeit the most plausible. So it turns out that scientists from your TV there is devilry and profanation of science (as well as you, your slave and Flitwick'and user Gauguin there is a profanation of religion). But if you specify a real person-a scientist, then it is a serious matter and there is something to ponder.
One important thing that you can be and understand, but never admit. The results of previous studies vary with the increase in the quality and accuracy of scientific methods applied to them. And if five years ago was one thing, and three years later it one has acquired a couple new features, then that's fine. And science works. But if, as in the case of cholesterol, observed the results, completely opposite to the original, it is either a rare phenomenon or the profanation of science.
Nevoeiro wrote:
Randomness is a scientific argument?
But what is the coincidence? What do we mean by accident? I would like to hear what you mean by this word.
Wing42
Topic links removed,and where in each they are my bots,and even slaves.A strange conclusion.
That is, a group of scientists can't make the opening,only one? Change is understandable,but there's also the opposite,that is refuted or fallacy.
That is, in one degree or another accident can be a scientific argument,well, for example, people randomly began to fry the meat?
Nevoeiro wrote:
Topic links removed,and where in each they are my bots,and even slaves,
The similar type and coloration is the same.
Nevoeiro wrote:
That is, a group of scientists can't make the opening,only one?
They can work together, but the final word will make only one. The most savvy or lucky.
Nevoeiro wrote:
That is, in one degree or another accident can be a scientific argument,well, for example, people randomly began to fry the meat?
Bad example.
Science does not stand still. Man's knowledge of nature is constantly supplemented with new facts. Based on these facts and theories are constructed to explain why is so and not otherwise. These theories are confirmed by experiments. If over time opens up new facts that contradict the theory, then the theory is refined or refuted.
If specifically about the dangers of cholesterol, first, it was found that it consists of plaque in vessels and stones in the gallbladder. In the absence of other data about its functions in the body, he was recognised as harmful. Then was found and his other functions, found that plaque formation depends not only on the presence of cholesterol, which is cholesterol needed by the body and most of it is produced by the body that is good and bad cholesterol.
If you're opening your new facts, the conclusions about the benefits/harm of cholesterol can be revised again.
So is the science. Believe it or not, can decide for himself. But remember that everything created by man, all the blessings of civilization created by science.
There is such a thing as research from the companies - manufacturers and independent research. The results are often the opposite. For example, as was the case with the dyes in food. Some of them can contribute to the incorrect translation of cells - cancer. But the company Mars long and hard to refute this statement, paying their own experts. Eventually of course they dye in M&M's changed. But it is very expensive. Therefore, in many cases, science is not always honest. Again, there are opposite case, when a person applies pressure authorities. That is : experts have proven, doctors recommend, the researchers found a - in fact, none of these figures in the face not seen, the diploma is not checked, unless there is a particular documented fact. Not only in the grocery industry.
Nevoeiro wrote:
The question is whether all the evidence of science can be trusted
This question carries the paradox =] I mean is the nature of paradox... to Believe or not to believe - not about the science, although in science there is (human evolution). But this is not a problem of science, it is a problem of people-scientists who can, or should, believe. Or not. To choose from.
Scientific evidence - is also an open question. If scientific proof is the conclusion of a scientist that once from the primates came the people, and this conclusion made on the analysis of the genome and bones, then I am strongly against such kind of evidence and do not consider IT a science. Impossible to verify, so it is impossible to say that *that fact* (reality, irrefutable by anyone in the Universe).
I understand the term fact as something that can check all, repeating for scientists. If the conclusion is not a fact, it's just an opinion based on facts. Examples:
1) Found the fingerprints of a person - that's a fact. Further insights: this person was in this place - not a fact, an opinion. The fact of the imprint indicates the likelihood, but not proof of reality.
2) Found the bones of mammals, a lot of bones, some types. The bones can be seen, which is probably one evolved from the other - an opinion, not a fact. Fact is - bones, no other facts point. The conclusion about transformation of one species into another is an opinion, not a fact.
I hope everything is fine, crystal clear? 8)
I'm for science. Pure science, devoid of lying about the facts that are really just conclusions based on facts. I think honestly call a spade a spade. What is fact and what is only opinion, supposition.
Nevoeiro wrote:
Randomness is a scientific argument?
There is not argument at all ) If a scientist explains to me the origin of life a Fluke, I can also argue to him that your dumb luck is God, lol. And he's *anything* will not be able to say in response )
Even if carried out in a laboratory experiment with a fluid, where the source of life, it does not prove the truthfulness of the version of the accidental origin of life how many billion years ago on earth. Why? Yes, because it is impossible to verify this (one method: the time machine, travel to the lard of years ago, in short, the idea, you understand).
Recochica wrote:
This is one of the reasons for the war veruny with science.
With scientists, not science.
Wing42 wrote:
But if you uncle with the TV says that Scientists have discovered a new unicellular organism and called it Novoeiro that dead languages is translated as rectal self-organized, then I would not jump to believe, because the scientists - is a collective image behind which you can hide any fiction, albeit the most plausible.
I agree.
Wing42 wrote:
The results of previous studies can change
And this is the most interesting. If the result changes, then it wasn't a fact, it's called a fact, but the reality of it is, that is, they were wrong. And well, if you recognize it. You do realize that scientists ego decent 8)
The conclusion is not a fact, sorry, fact, issued by the scientific method, is finally a fact &) Reality independent of the observer and the scientific method, it is uniform and consistent, our opinion is not affected.
Charl wrote:
Therefore, in many cases, science is not always honest.
No, science is always clean, unclean and dishonest people.
vftor wrote:
The accident is not known the pattern.
That is, it is God ^_^
PS
My idea: Fact = Reality = Truth. A scientific fact is an open question, whether it is a fact or not at all, since there were cases in history when scientific understanding was revised...
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
about is God ^_^
Not necessarily a God or gods. Supposedly random event may come from the human Mind in the creative process, as evidenced by in-depth analysis of the progress of its thinking. Also in the universe can happen naturally isolated process over millions of years, which will be considered as random, i.e. not predictable.
vftor
Then, of course. The tortoise was right: Accidents are not accidental =]
the truth can not accept as the truth the people is unattainable
take in a closer approximation as a special case can be.
otherwise I'll have to run all the achievements of humanity independently from the invention of the one-dimensional arithmetic with objective evidence of relative truth in skepticism to scientific nauchnoy. what doraga (e.g. that the earth Salobrena) and brain Pocono virtually impossible.
MunchkiN 616 wrote:
the truth can not accept as the truth the people is unattainable
Clear. There is a definition of truth. I have, however, it is more specific and simple: truth is reality. For example, you see a plane (or UFO), and others have not. You know the truth, and those not. Their problems )
MunchkiN 616 wrote:
when skepticism to scientific nauchnoy
Just take for granted. Well there's a theory or something, but the other clear answer is no, let it be so ) How much I care about the theory of strings? Not very. And that care is not always possible to test, and what remains? To accept what we have. However, this does not mean that I'm not going to discuss the subject here on the forum ;]
For example, when scientists determined the nature of lightning (denying that their Zeus throws), I have no problem with that. Why should you be? From a religious fanatic, probably would have a problem with that ) But lightning is not difficult to check: to send it personally to the stratosphere so he can watch. The business is...
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
the truth is the reality. For example, you see a plane (or UFO), and others have not. You know the truth, and those not.
and how to exactly distinguish the real from the unreal? the brain is quite able to distort memories or even create false to a certain extent. not to mention all the rest. so peck.
MunchkiN 616
and how to exactly distinguish the real from the unreal?
It all depends on the level of personality development.
To distinguish the real from the unreal, that is, to know the truth, perhaps, but only the most advanced people whose Mind starts to control and manage the mind and all other senses. At such moments a person is in a controlled trance.
The truth with a certain degree of error can be identify the brilliant and talented people in a creative trance (creative inspiration).
Ordinary people are not able to know the truth, but under the influence of the trance advanced people, they can recognize this truth, and partly to understand it.
MunchkiN 616 wrote:
the brain is quite able to distort
Under the influence of drugs and alcohol, Yes. If drunk saw that, then I can doubt myself 8) I don't drink and if I see that, I 100% definitely know that this is exactly what I saw, not glitches. Alas, I didn't see anything, even ball lightning have not yet seen (but of course I want to see).
MunchkiN 616 wrote:
distort memories
Possible. Due to psychological trauma or because of the small age. Difficult then, in the normal condition or as an adult, to understand whether it was real or not.
vftor wrote:
where the Mind starts to control and manage the mind and all other feelings
In General, in adults this is so, except in cases of alcoholic intoxication, schizophrenia, and other distortions of 8)
A. Soldier of Light
In General, in adults it is so
No, you do not understand about what speech. There is a mind, intelligence, is the Mind (conscious thinking), which controls the mind. Using mind people communicate through speech, writing, etc., and with the help of Reason beings communicate telepathically. Animals have 1 S. S.(signal system) and the beginnings of 2 S. S. (mind). A person has a 1 S. S. 2 S. S. 3 and S. S. beginnings (the Mind).
Nevoeiro wrote:
The question is whether all the evidence of science, you can believe and accept the truth, or should be questioned?
I think that not always and not all should be trusted.
The fact that all scientific research is based on known to man laws of nature. But to believe that man knows all the laws of nature - is absurd. Here begins the most interesting - believe it or not. For example, the expansion of the Universe is scientifically justified by the offset in the radio wave range. However, it is safe to assume that the supposed proof of the expansion is taken incorrectly, the famous and the observed redshift can be caused by the unknown yet to mankind by the law of nature.
A simple comparison. Historical people justify the phenomena of thunder and lightning by the actions of angry gods. However, research in the field of magnetism and electricity lifted the veil of secrecy of this natural phenomenon.