Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Know-Nothing Smart

  1. #1 Know-Nothing Smart 
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    I grow more and more sick of people who dont know anything about science but still tries to prove something to be wrong. My question is, why do this people think that something is false, flaw, wrong etc and that the entire scientific community havent thought on that and that they are those who are right?


    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    gardengrove California
    Posts
    138
    lol how can u know nothing and be smart o.O


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    the point with this is simply that they dont know anything but think they are smart, they are not-knowing smart then
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    From my experience zelos, I think these people fancy themselves as intelligent, and they want recognition as such. The best way (they believe) to get said recognition, is to overturn present-day knowledge. The usual target - Einstein. Why Einstein? Because he is the quintessential genius of popular culture.

    The typical case is that they just aren't as smart as they think they are. And no one wants to admit that.

    I've thought for a long time now that there are people that are fairly smart... but if they were just a tad smarter... they would realize that they aren't that smart.

    It is one thing to read about genius scientists and mathematicians - and an entirely different thing to know one in person. I have had the luxury of befriending a handful of true geniuses - this keeps me from letting my imagination get the better of myself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Guest
    I believe that the issue is that those who attempt to disprove someone who has a firm grasp already in the minds of nearly every information parroting lunatic tends to be a lunatic themselves. Rather than formulate a plausible hypothesis, put to through numerous bashings, etc, they assume accuracy on their own brainpower.

    I've seen some pretty stupid people arguing FOR Einstein by just copy and pasting information rather than using reference points or logical arguments. Many skip copy and pasting and just blindly parrot what they were taught in physics class. Hence the term "parroted information".

    The funny thing is, I've ended up defending Special and General relativity numerous times, yet I disagree due to black holes (which I am currently in the process of restudy so I can give Oph the math he wishes, unless I find I'm wrong after rereading everything) and reference frames as well as the speed of light constant due to tests which slow it down or speed it up (the photons. Zelos "explained" this in a previous thread). However, this does not mean I assume I am correct. This means your logic is false.

    I can see where you are coming from; as a lot of people disagreeing with Einstein (myself included) tend to have little more than hypothesis based on logical reasoning rather than the physics math you appear to want so much. The problem with that is, almost nobody can reason logically, this is why religion exists and why logical anti-relativity arguments are few and very far between.

    Overall, your hostility has reason, but the reasons alone don't account for the amounting hostility and arrogance. There is always the possibility Einstein is wrong, the fact most people don't want to look for this possibility is rather depressing. It's like a creationist that never studies evolution, infinitely depressing.

    In the end, some of us who don't agree with Einstein would prefer to further science by disproving it or proving it right, rather than just inflating our egos. Unfortunately I'm not exactly a poster boy for this, but I'd rather you attempt to view yourself in a skeptical manner.
    I should remind you that the reason only a few people really make discoveries is that other physicists, no matter how numerous, aren't exactly the "create a new theory" type. Your reasoning that it must be correct because most physicists agree on it is similar to the following:

    Most people are creationists

    Few people are Evolutionists

    Therefore, Creationists are more correct than Evolutionists.

    Now this will seem highly fake or save-face style, but I've been disproved numerous times by wildly speculating random things and talking them out with intellectuals I know. In the process of all this (including large amounts of debates) it's not difficult to learn that hubris is quite the self-defeating status. I'm sure Zelos is completely familiar with it, since he started this thread with an insult to everyone that attempts to disagree and doesn't have a formal education.

    To end this, I don't have a formal education in Philosophy, Evolution, Creationism, Theology, Psychology, Sociology, Metaphysics (can you even get a formal education with that?), etc, yet I can hold my own with most of them. Save for when I'm absolutely without a doubt so wrong I end up making an utter fool of myself (which, looking back, I've done here. A lot). I've even ended up disproving people with "formal educations", which only proves the point that formal education is not supreme.
    Formal education, and physics equations, while a plus do not mean that the logic or reasoning behind a hypothesis is incorrect. A number of theories popular today started with logical guesses, and then worked their way from there to physics equations and such.

    So the next time a person attempts to find a flaw by using reasoning, backed with what they know of physics (I know enough for some reasoning, but not enough off hand apparently), why is it you don't swallow up your pride and just disprove them using their own logic or reasoning? It's more interesting than just parroting physics equations when not needed, especially if the person is claiming hypothesis and not fact or theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    As one who feels he may be the subject of the original post let me enlighten you.

    There was a time when everyone agreed, along came a crackpot his name was Galileo.

    There are those without knowledge who do indeed have crackpot ideas which can easily be disproven.

    There are those with some knowledge (how dangerous that can be!) who attempt to probe and push the theories of others. This is a generally accepted part of learning.

    There are reputable scientists whose ideas and theories do NOT fully account for a phenomina. These are a legitimate target.

    Hawking radiation - it cannot be proven nor disproven.
    The existence of a divine deity cannot be proven or disproven.

    These are examples where alternate theories are quite proper.

    The author of this thread seems to indicate that just because a scientist has had a theory accepted (irrespective of hard facts to support it ) that it should be accepted verbatim.

    We all have[approximately] the same power of reason and mental faculty.

    Bohr was far from being a competant mathematician, he had an outstanding imagination and is regarded as having made a not insignificant contribution to Quantum physics.

    Johann Jakob Balmer (a swiss schoolmaster) Well I'll leave you to find out what part he played in the story of the quantum by thinking about it at his home.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    I have nothing against new theories, but you have to prove it.

    For example if someone, said that cancer can be cure by yoga : why not. But he has to prove it.
    Worse if such man, is not able to prove it, and persuade someone, to follow his form of therapy at the exclusion of each other : he is a dangerous guy who endanger the life of other people.

    It's good to question science, but in order to do so, you have to study what already exist and do not make theories out of nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerdoc
    I have nothing against new theories, but you have to prove it.

    For example if someone, said that cancer can be cure by yoga : why not. But he has to prove it.
    Worse if such man, is not able to prove it, and persuade someone, to follow his form of therapy at the exclusion of each other : he is a dangerous guy who endanger the life of other people.

    It's good to question science, but in order to do so, you have to study what already exist and do not make theories out of nothing.
    I agree with what you say, it points to the first case I quoted "There are those without knowledge who do indeed have crackpot ideas which can easily be disproven. "

    Being in a science forum I assumed we were talking only science theories - many are made and accepted some not for hundreds of years!
    The word Atom is derived from ancient Greece - where the theory was an atom was the smallest unit of matter, it was some 2000yrs before Rutherford et al added weight to that theory. So I disagree with having to prove a theory. I can however accept that in your area of science a proof may be more attainable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    God
    God is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    USA, Earth
    Posts
    17
    I honestly hate people who are (fairly) smart but don't work that hard to be intelligent (study, read much, etc.). Either people who: 1) have a true gift in math, science, or any other area of work/study 2) people do excellent in whatever job or test they do/take.
    Save Stargate SG1 !!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerdoc
    I have nothing against new theories, but you have to prove it.

    For example if someone, said that cancer can be cure by yoga : why not. But he has to prove it.
    Worse if such man, is not able to prove it, and persuade someone, to follow his form of therapy at the exclusion of each other : he is a dangerous guy who endanger the life of other people.

    It's good to question science, but in order to do so, you have to study what already exist and do not make theories out of nothing.
    I agree with what you say, it points to the first case I quoted "There are those without knowledge who do indeed have crackpot ideas which can easily be disproven. "

    Being in a science forum I assumed we were talking only science theories - many are made and accepted some not for hundreds of years!
    The word Atom is derived from ancient Greece - where the theory was an atom was the smallest unit of matter, it was some 2000yrs before Rutherford et al added weight to that theory. So I disagree with having to prove a theory. I can however accept that in your area of science a proof may be more attainable.
    In my aera, the important point is not to prove a theory, but to demonstrate that your experiment (for example cure a disease A with a drug B) work in a flawlessly way (not so easy). After you have demonstrated this, it's time to try to understand the mechanism of action of this drug or therapy or whatevre, and to build a theory.

    In other way, some time a theory give you indication for using particular type of drugs or therapy.

    It's certainly because medecine is an applied science
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    I dont know though, I think most of the knockers of say 'Einstein' know quite a bit about physics they just seem to have lost their way a bit.
    'Martillo' for example, a totle nut job but seems to have been taught some proper physics at some point in his life.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    I dont know though, I think most of the knockers of say 'Einstein' know quite a bit about physics they just seem to have lost their way a bit.
    'Martillo' for example, a totle nut job but seems to have been taught some proper physics at some point in his life.
    Gee, that so isn't talking like it's the cult of relativity.
    You have strayed from the path of righteousness! Turn back or burn in hell!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    I dont know though, I think most of the knockers of say 'Einstein' know quite a bit about physics they just seem to have lost their way a bit.
    'Martillo' for example, a totle nut job but seems to have been taught some proper physics at some point in his life.
    Gee, that so isn't talking like it's the cult of relativity.
    You have strayed from the path of righteousness! Turn back or burn in hell!
    Huh? Relativitys a cult? You're anti-relativity? or you think I am?
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    Haha sorry, I mean the way you mentioned it there made it sound like a religion. Christians use "strayed from the path of righteousness" quite a loy you see. Thus "stray from the path"; or "lost their way" as you stated, furthers my point that science can get downright RELIGIOUS about things. Ironic, isn't it?
    Also hilarious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    furthers my point that science can get downright RELIGIOUS about things. Ironic, isn't it?
    Also hilarious.
    Not much of a point then! Sorry but science isn't a religion it's an evidence of known fact.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Guest
    Someone isn't getting the joke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Someone isn't getting the joke.
    A certain theist isn't making one.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Guest
    Really? A theist posted one? Where?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Really? A theist posted one? Where?
    You! christian boy.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Know-Nothing Smart 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    My question is, why do this people think that something is false, flaw, wrong etc and that the entire scientific community havent thought on that and that they are those who are right?
    http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=626166

    MORTAL KOMBAT: FATALITY!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    I just wonder if Bob Newhart ever treated Albert the same way as he treated 'Walt' :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Really? A theist posted one? Where?
    You! christian boy.
    The jokes on you. Not only did you not get the joke that the science community can religiously hold onto things rather than seek alternatives; you also apparently don't know I'm an atheist.

    MORTAL KOMBAT: FATALITY!

    Yes, I'll stop that now. haha
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    I honestly hate people who are (fairly) smart but don't work that hard to be intelligent (study, read much, etc.). Either people who: 1) have a true gift in math, science, or any other area of work/study 2) people do excellent in whatever job or test they do/take.
    how can you hate those? cause you feel inferior?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Seems to me this is all a lot about nothing. Zelos gave us not one single exampe, so we are all just unloading on "people who know less than we."

    Besides, even ignorant people are entitled to a forum. So, they should not be hated! Everyone cannot be smart, wise and educated. Wouldn't it be disappointing to think that everyone was as smart as you? If they were, we would have to look for some other means to assert our self-respect. There are those who go into body building. . .

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Seems to me this is all a lot about nothing. Zelos gave us not one single exampe, so we are all just unloading on "people who know less than we."

    Besides, even ignorant people are entitled to a forum. So, they should not be hated! Everyone cannot be smart, wise and educated. Wouldn't it be disappointing to think that everyone was as smart as you? If they were, we would have to look for some other means to assert our self-respect. There are those who go into body building. . .

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Words like intelligent, smart, thick, stupid, clever etc are all relative. However you describe your self, it is only because the others exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    south africa
    Posts
    122
    i think it is human nature to question EVERYTHING!!! its through questioning and doubting cold hard facts that instills our belief in them, in these facts/beliefs/theries in question. unfortunately not everyone has the TYPE of intelligence to understand physics or whatever in question but it does not mean that they may not question, doubt or challenge cold hard scientific facts. its there way of learning i guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNeedles
    i think it is human nature to question EVERYTHING!!! its through questioning and doubting cold hard facts that instills our belief in them, in these facts/beliefs/theries in question. unfortunately not everyone has the TYPE of intelligence to understand physics or whatever in question but it does not mean that they may not question, doubt or challenge cold hard scientific facts. its there way of learning i guess.
    ----EXTREME SARCASM WARNING----

    No, that's stupid. Questioning beliefs is entirely stupid because it only proves you're an idiot that doesn't understand them! Challenging the "facts" of scientists means you're an idiot, since you completely disegard the fact they've spent years learning about it rather than years questioning it, and they also know everything. Questioning things leads to inaccurate assumptions! QUESTION NOTHING!

    And don't even think about proving a theory is fully or partially incorrect. Theories are fact, they cannot be proven incorrect. Especially by logical questions that have never been properly answered.
    Ah yes, and don't question anything that scientists with Ph.D's say. They know everything. You know nothing. You're just an average person with no professional education, so you obviously know nothing.

    ----THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTREME SARCASM POST----
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNeedles
    i think it is human nature to question EVERYTHING!!! its through questioning and doubting cold hard facts that instills our belief in them, in these facts/beliefs/theries in question. unfortunately not everyone has the TYPE of intelligence to understand physics or whatever in question but it does not mean that they may not question, doubt or challenge cold hard scientific facts. its there way of learning i guess.
    ----EXTREME SARCASM WARNING----

    No, that's stupid. Questioning beliefs is entirely stupid because it only proves you're an idiot that doesn't understand them! Challenging the "facts" of scientists means you're an idiot, since you completely disegard the fact they've spent years learning about it rather than years questioning it, and they also know everything. Questioning things leads to inaccurate assumptions! QUESTION NOTHING!

    And don't even think about proving a theory is fully or partially incorrect. Theories are fact, they cannot be proven incorrect. Especially by logical questions that have never been properly answered.
    Ah yes, and don't question anything that scientists with Ph.D's say. They know everything. You know nothing. You're just an average person with no professional education, so you obviously know nothing.

    ----THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTREME SARCASM POST----

    "Questioning beliefs is entirely stupid?" I question other peoples beliefs, in their gods.


    "Theories are facts" No they are not, it was a theory that martian trees uprooted themselves and went looking for water then re-rooted, - as in a NASA film....


    "Ah yes, and don't question anything that scientists with Ph.D's say."
    An old professor with a Phd in astronomony in the 1920's proposed it as fact that the dark patches on the moon were clouds of migrating insects...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    south africa
    Posts
    122
    lol yor sarcasm is much appreciated jerry! lol i like the one about the martian trees uprooting themselves!!! hahaha! im glad someone questioned that 1!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    "Questioning beliefs is entirely stupid?" I question other peoples beliefs, in their gods.


    "Theories are facts" No they are not, it was a theory that martian trees uprooted themselves and went looking for water then re-rooted, - as in a NASA film....


    "Ah yes, and don't question anything that scientists with Ph.D's say."
    An old professor with a Phd in astronomony in the 1920's proposed it as fact that the dark patches on the moon were clouds of migrating insects...
    JESUS MOTHER OF....megabrain, read the "EXTREME ********SARCASM********" warning. Please. You nearly made my brain implode by rigorously IGNORING it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNeedles
    i think it is human nature to question EVERYTHING!!! its through questioning and doubting cold hard facts that instills our belief in them, in these facts/beliefs/theries in question. unfortunately not everyone has the TYPE of intelligence to understand physics or whatever in question but it does not mean that they may not question, doubt or challenge cold hard scientific facts. its there way of learning i guess.
    i am forced to agree with you. i might have used "most people" than human nature. then i kind of wonder if we could disagree with something already synonymous with ours. the same would be true for someone who is working on a subject or not sure and rejects anything contrary to his/her set goal. also its not wrong to question something illogical to your way of thinking or what you consider logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Guest
    LMAO!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: Know-Nothing Smart 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    I grow more and more sick of people who dont know anything about science but still tries to prove something to be wrong. My question is, why do this people think that something is false, flaw, wrong etc and that the entire scientific community havent thought on that and that they are those who are right?
    So it is your supposition that one should not question something he perceives in error because the general opinion is contrary to his ideas.

    Thank goodness people are not so weak willed as to bow down to feable minded intellectual conformist tripe like what you suggest.

    Questioning the scientific community is the obligation of anyone who even is the least bit suspicious they might be wrong.

    If the world worked the way you suggest people would still believe sneezing was caused by demons and the universe revolved around the earth--these were ALL FACTS at some point in History as it relates to general opinion of what passes for the scientific community.

    These people who bother you so much are also the same people responsible for most innovation, accepting the status quo never led anyone to a breakthrough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: Know-Nothing Smart 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Normally, I would not come to Zelos's defence (since bad grammar and poorly structured arguments are indefensible).
    Quote Originally Posted by Falls
    So it is your supposition that one should not question something he perceives in error because the general opinion is contrary to his ideas.
    Zelos is condemning those who, with little or no evidence, question theories which have been rigorously investigated, tested, assessed, re-assessed, and confirmed, by hundreds or thousands of researchers, using tens of thousands, or even millions of observations, over periods of many years, decades, or even centuries.
    It the decision to question such well established evidence merely on a whim, or because the questioner has his own 'theory' that Zelos is, quite rightly, objecting to.
    Such questioning is not the product of concerned, analytical investigation, but a near pathological, indulgence of deep seated ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Falls
    Thank goodness people are not so weak willed as to bow down to feable minded intellectual conformist tripe like what you suggest.
    Now I should be enormously interested if you could demonstrate, lets say in the case of primate behaviour, just exactly what is feable(sic) minded, or indeed confirmist, in the works of Carpenter, Schaller, Fossey, or Goodall. If this is too specific, or much too unfamiliar territory for you, then please offer up another cogent example. Otherwise, concede that you have merely strung together a series of emotive words with minimal semantic content.
    Quote Originally Posted by Falls
    Questioning the scientific community is the obligation of anyone who even is the least bit suspicious they might be wrong.
    This statement betrays a singular ignorance of the nature of science or the scientific community. The scientific community itself continuously questions its findings. That is the very nature of science.
    It is the pseudo-scientists that Zelos is frustrated by who fail to use critical thinking, or, it seems, any kind of thinking at all, in what are generally knee jerk reactions to of an emotional character to concepts that are largely beyond their understanding anyway.

    Perhaps I have misunderstood the thrust of your thesis, in which case I look forward to you clarification. As presented, however, your argument is baseless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: Know-Nothing Smart 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Zelos is condemning those who, with little or no evidence, question theories which have been rigorously investigated, tested, assessed, re-assessed, and confirmed, by hundreds or thousands of researchers, using tens of thousands, or even millions of observations, over periods of many years, decades, or even centuries.
    I'm afraid, Oph, you just commited a "type" of Appeal to Authority fallacy.

    That and, while many of those people in question are idiots, Zelos works on the fallacy that it's automatically wrong.

    Here is something similar to said fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

    ----EDIT----

    I should note that I do not support what this poster said. I merely make an example of logical fallacies that are common with zelos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: Know-Nothing Smart 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I'm afraid, Oph, you just commited a "type" of Appeal to Authority fallacy..
    I don't think so. Indeed, quite the contrary.
    I am referencing the procedures and processes of the scientific method. Within the scope of that method the frequency with which a hypothesis is tested and validated bears, quite rightly, on the extent to which the hypothesis becomes accepted.
    That is quite different from saying, for example, that because Stephen Gould says something I should aceept it. (That would be appeal to authority.) Rather, I would tend to accept it because Gould said "extensive, replicated research has confirmed these findings".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37 Re: Know-Nothing Smart 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I'm afraid, Oph, you just commited a "type" of Appeal to Authority fallacy..
    I don't think so. Indeed, quite the contrary.
    I am referencing the procedures and processes of the scientific method. Within the scope of that method the frequency with which a hypothesis is tested and validated bears, quite rightly, on the extent to which the hypothesis becomes accepted.
    That is quite different from saying, for example, that because Stephen Gould says something I should aceept it. (That would be appeal to authority.) Rather, I would tend to accept it because Gould said "extensive, replicated research has confirmed these findings".
    Actually, that's almost the same. The "extensive research" was conducted by those authority figures. Since it was conducted by them, assuming they actually used the scientific method properly and were still skeptical about the results (Since the hell when are they skeptical? I've yet to see one test conducted by a skeptical group), you'd still have a million more tests to be conducted. All the tests I've seen so far (like those clocks) are quite the opposite of "skeptical".

    Here's basically how it goes: When you look for something, you're bound to find it. It's like starting off a research project to find out if there is a god when you already firmly believe in said god. That is why scientists are SUPPOSED to be skeptics. However...best part...they're usually not.

    I have almost no faith in the worlds current scientific system. I'm not saying I'm correct in believing certain theories are wrong, I'm just saying scientists need to be more skeptic.

    Pay a man to do it, he'll do it for the money. Ask a man to do it, he'll do it for the knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    It seems to me the discussion so far has been rather simplistic. Einstein's name was mentioned, but all seem to have missed the implications of what his theories in 1905-7 entailed. It was the relativeness of all knowledge. His work was followed by the realization of series of brilliant scientists in a host of different fields that there is no absolute truth in science. We just keep improving the accuracy of what we believe. Words such as "fact", "truth," and "proof" should not be used to imply an absolute. For example, we say the Earth is round, but it is not PERFECTLY round. It is slightly pear shaped. But since it is almost round, we say it is for practical purposes.

    So, it is important to keep in mind that nothing we know is absolute or absolutely true and nothing is perfect. We can never know everything about anything and that new evidence may support a new theory or a change in the old one, but no evidence proves any theory to be absolutely true.

    People who cannot understand this all really do not understand science and do not recognize that we will never know everything, hence, that we will always need science.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39 Re: Know-Nothing Smart 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I have almost no faith in the worlds current scientific system. I'm not saying I'm correct in believing certain theories are wrong, I'm just saying scientists need to be more skeptic.
    I have no faith in scientists: I have absolute confidence in the scientific system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40 Re: Know-Nothing Smart 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I have almost no faith in the worlds current scientific system. I'm not saying I'm correct in believing certain theories are wrong, I'm just saying scientists need to be more skeptic.
    I have no faith in scientists: I have absolute confidence in the scientific system.
    Hmm...better put.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •