Refuting Science (funny)

[Master of Ossus]

Posted on PW.com.



Enjoy.

[DPDarkPrimus]

This is a parody, right?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It's hard to believe that that would be serious. I mean..

What's the Trinity Foundation?

[Gil Hamilton]

Oooh, quoting famous scientists and philosophers out of context is fun. Also I like how they say because experiments never give exactly the same reading, they can't be trusted. Obviously, random and systematic errors prove that our eyes deceive us and thus all experimentation is bunk. Then their is giving the wrong definition of a hypothesis... oy that hurts to read.

[Gil Hamilton]

Wow, I clicked return too soon. This just caught my eye.

In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly ever boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data.

@ the bolded.

Also, if he averages the results, by definition he's taking a mean value. If he was taking the median, for instance, it would not be an average because they mean two different things.

Then there is this:

Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one. What is the probability of the scientist choosing the correct curve out of an infinite number of possibilities? The chance is one over infinity, or zero. Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true.

Someone hasn't taken differental calculus, but fortunately physicists have because they know the awesome and almighty power of the Linear Regression, which bends to its will the graph so the physicist need never guess where to draw the line.

[LadyTevar]

WTF? What's he mean water doesn't boil at the same temperature?!

[SirNitram]

WTF? What's he mean water doesn't boil at the same temperature?!

He's right but wrong.

Right in that as your air pressure changes, the boiling temperature of water will change.

Wrong in that it means shit towards his conclusion. We know why it does this.

[LadyTevar]

WTF? What's he mean water doesn't boil at the same temperature?!

He's right but wrong.

Right in that as your air pressure changes, the boiling temperature of water will change.

Wrong in that it means shit towards his conclusion. We know why it does this.

That's what I meant, sillybutt. Even at different altitudes, the temperature water boils remains the same for that elevation.

[sketerpot]

This is a parody, right?

Aside from the hilarious idiocy, this site looks too big and too serious to be a parody. They're actually selling collections of articles from their journal dating back to the 80's.

This guy is so abysmally stupid that making fun of him is like pointing and laughing at a handicapped child. I'm a bad, bad man:

(3) Science commits the fallacy of induction. Induction is the attempt to derive a general law from particular instances. Science is necessarily inductive. For example, if a scientist is studying crows, he might observe 999 crows and find that they all are black. But is he ever able to assert that all crows are black? No; the next crow he observes might be an albino. One can never observe all crows: past, present, and future. Universal propositions can never be validly obtained by observation. Hence, science can never give us true statements.

This guy is going after absolute, I-think-therefore-I-am proof! With most people I would recommend studying the philosophy of science, but he has apparently done so and come back with his delusions reinforced and the material filtered through the twisted mass of reality-distorting glop he calls his brain.

The question arises, "If science never gives us truth, how can it be so successful?" It all depends on how one defines success. We are now able to put a man on the moon; we are also able to destroy our fellow man with one push of a button. Are these measures of success? Scientific theories are always changing (whereas truth is eternal). Is constant change a measure of success?

This is such a breathtakingly fallacious bit of rhetorical maneuvering that I have to wonder if he actually believes it. I think he does, which makes this really damn disturbing.

It's cool to make fun of the mentally disabled!

[tumbletom]

Equations are always selected, they are never discovered.

But what he doesnt seem to see is that these equations work for the parameters that it was made for. If one changes some condition, of course the equation must be changed, but just because of that, they can't be used to prove that all scientific laws are wrong.

Anyway, he says these things, but he doesn't show a better way, which is usually the purpose of these types of essays. Science may not be perfect, but it works.

[sketerpot]

Anyway, he says these things, but he doesn't show a better way, which is usually the purpose of these types of essays. Science may not be perfect, but it works.

Ah, but he addressed that! Toward the end of the essay he pulled the Bible out of his ass, asserted that it was the Truth, and said that Science is just a tool for subjugating the world to our will as demanded in Genesis.

[fgalkin]

Posted on PW.com.



Enjoy.

Which fundie posted that, btw?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darksider]

I don't see how this is funny....

I got to the part where the author claims that Science is NOT a method of discovering truth, simply because we can never be absolutly sure of anything, and then I had to go throw up....


How can anyone be this insane or stupid?

[Obloquium]

I don't see how this is funny....

I got to the part where the author claims that Science is NOT a method of discovering truth, simply because we can never be absolutly sure of anything, and then I had to go throw up....


How can anyone be this insane or stupid?

Science is not a method of ascertaining truth, it's a method of determining whether we're justified in believing whether or not a proposition true given a domain of empirical principles. How you arrive at that domain, or any other, is a philosophical question. The author is objecting naive empiricism, an easy target for Creationists. However, all this ranting has nothing to do with his positive case--the propositions of God and Scripture he asserts are true--and nothing in the article explains why he considers "God exists" and Christian theology to be knowledge.

[Master of Ossus]

Which fundie posted that, btw?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

It was "mrcool011." One look at his username and you know it's going to be bad.

[Dalton]

I saw this at the bottom of the page...

Koinoniacally yours,

Charles G. Phinney Amy Simple McFearsome

For the Committee

[CJvR]

Right in that as your air pressure changes, the boiling temperature of water will change.

You can also superheat or cool water if it is pure enough and you do it carefully.

[SyntaxVorlon]

I saw this at the bottom of the page...

Koinoniacally yours,

Charles G. Phinney Amy Simple McFearsome

For the Committee

They also said:

2. Apologize to the churches you have offended by your rationalism and offer to work with them in advancing our common message, God’s wish that all men be saved. We have taken the liberty of drafting several letters for your signature.

in a letter to Paul....
PLEASE, Lords of Chaos, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let it be a hideous parody.

[Gil Hamilton]

Hrm... on second thought, it probably is a parody now that I've bothered to read all of it.

[AdmiralKanos]

The fact that it's so hard to tell whether it's a parody is a fairly powerful indictment of the typical anti-scientific viewpoint commonly expressed on religious websites.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Wow, I clicked return too soon. This just caught my eye.

In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly ever boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data.

@ the bolded.

Also, if he averages the results, by definition he's taking a mean value. If he was taking the median, for instance, it would not be an average because they mean two different things.

Then there is this:

Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one. What is the probability of the scientist choosing the correct curve out of an infinite number of possibilities? The chance is one over infinity, or zero. Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true.

Someone hasn't taken differental calculus, but fortunately physicists have because they know the awesome and almighty power of the Linear Regression, which bends to its will the graph so the physicist need never guess where to draw the line.

I love ideologues who are too stupid to understand High School statistics.

[tumbletom]

Anyway, he says these things, but he doesn't show a better way, which is usually the purpose of these types of essays. Science may not be perfect, but it works.

Ah, but he addressed that! Toward the end of the essay he pulled the Bible out of his ass, asserted that it was the Truth, and said that Science is just a tool for subjugating the world to our will as demanded in Genesis.

Ah but thats not a better way---its just a cheap copout

[tumbletom]

[quote]2. Apologize to the churches you have offended by your rationalism and offer to work with them in advancing our common message, God’s wish that all men be saved. We have taken the liberty of drafting several letters for your signature.[/quote]


BWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA....
Thats funny. Thank you for your consideration guys!!

[SPOOFE]

I've seen this sort of bull before. Any crackpot with a personal theory will go to great lengths to scare the layman away from the "scientists", denouncing them as being too complicated.

For some reason, people tend to want to believe in simple answers, rather than accurate ones.

[DPDarkPrimus]

For some reason, people tend to want to believe in simple answers, rather than accurate ones.

"OCCAM'S RAZOR, OMG!"