Page 28 of 30 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 300

Thread: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

  1. #271
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    491

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    US economy on the verge of collapse, currency wars being conducted in private.

    TOP NEWS STORY: someone who doesn't matter said something that is kinda right and kinda wrong, but its Christian ... ATTACKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!

    America loses, and fails, again.

  2. #272
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    No, no big agenda. To anybody that practices science or is trained in science, it's blatantly obvious that science in neither inherently objective or infallible. Knowing this makes you a better scientist. I merely stated it was a common misconception among high-school aged kids to believe otherwise. Why you're trying to prove that misconception is beyond me, but I'm happy to continue replying to your posts.

    You claim "I have always said there is room discerning opinions and views in science" - so maybe you're having difficulty with what it means to be infallible or objective, or maybe what "science" is.


    The point about the "solar system" is true, but can be a difficult to grasp. It will probably never come up in your studies unless you end up taking graduate courses in something like philosophy or cognitive science. The idea of a "solar system" is a concept - a simplification of the real world. That's what science does - it doesn't uncover "the truth" so much as simplify the world in terms we can understand. It tends to be only as accurate as it needs to be.


    You say science won't always point to objective truth, but is nonetheless infallible. That makes no sense.
    The solar system exists.. understanding how it works is a scientific concept.. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but yes there is subjectivity in science. However, science isn't all about subjectivity. It involves many areas that are objective... objective areas exist in science as a whole and in understanding the solar system, and I am not even going to point it out.. You think you know more than me, then you should already understand that.

    And declaring science as over all fallible is guess what... subjective. It isn't taught or understood that science is completely flawed or fallible.. testing and judgement can be, not the entire field.. Science is critical and the most respected scientists try improve the field and the understanding of the world constantly..

    Science has made great contributions in the world in the areas of engineering, physics, chemistry, astronomy, medicine, etc.etc. and it has saved lives, increased our standard of living and our knowledge, and encourages exchange of ideas and debate.. if you want to keep saying the entire practice is fallible go on ahead. I don't give a ****.

    I know what subjectivity and objectivity actually means. It looks like you don't..

  3. #273
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    It isn't taught or understood that science is completely flawed or fallible.. testing and judgement can be, not the entire field..
    Nobody is claiming that science is "completely flawed." It is fallible and it is understood to be fallible. To claim otherwise is to say science only produces knowledge that is certain and devoid of error.

    Once again, at some level you seem to understand that science is fallible, you're just unwilling to label it a such. I think because you either don't understand what "fallible" means or don't understand what "science" is.

  4. #274
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: Oh no you just didn'!

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Sure it's been tested. But it didn't start out as a hypothesis that was repeatedly tested and eventually became a theory. Completely false. The theory provided a new model to account for existing, known phenomena that had startling implications. It wasn't that scientists tested the "relativity hypothesis" - the relativity theory suggested multiple, new hypotheses that were tested and confirmed.

    "Repetitive testing" of a hypothesis, by itself, is not very convincing evidence that you've figured out how things work - common misconception.


    More rubbish. Laws generalize observations, not theories. Laws describe, theories explain.

    How you tried to define a theory: "a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested" is actually closer to a description of a law.


    "Scientific journals" (the vast majority of them) don't discuss these topics, and many of the people who publish in scientific journals don't understand them either.

    What you claim to read is irrelevant. If you want to debate, then debate. Don't expect me to be swayed or impressed by an appeal to authority - an unsubstantiated one at that. You don't see me talking about my education on this forum. Besides, it only makes you look more foolish when you're shown to be wrong.


    Gravity started out as a hypothesis.. We know "what goes up must come down" and about falling apples, but the concept that it is gravity doing it and what gravity actually is- is a theory. Newton's hypothesis of gravity involved three laws of movement, which he tested with observation and demonstrated to others to support his hypothesis.. After that testing and additional testing, his hypothesis became known as the "Newton's law of universal gravitation."

    Later Einstein rendered the objections of Newton's Law moot.. with the theory of relativity..

    If you want to keep arguing it's false.. source it.. site it. Just claiming so, doesn't make it so. It's really trivial to have debates over what the scientific method actually says..
    Last edited by SheWolf; 10-22-10 at 04:09 PM.

  5. #275
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Nobody is claiming that science is "completely flawed." It is fallible and it is understood to be fallible. To claim otherwise is to say science only produces knowledge that is certain and devoid of error.

    Once again, at some level you seem to understand that science is fallible, you're just unwilling to label it a such. I think because you either don't understand what "fallible" means or don't understand what "science" is.
    You finally define the terms of subjectivity... If that was your initial premise, you shouldn't have been arguing with me in first place.. being that I have never ONCE changed anything that I have ever said. I am unwilling to label the entire practice as fallible and subjective, and I am not incorrect. If you think I am incorrect, then back it up.

    *noticed you dropped that word, btw.. subjective..


  6. #276
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Oh no you just didn'!

    This is a cute little representation of "The Scientific Method," SheWolf. It says it was created for an earth science class. Unfortunately, whoever created it doesn't understand how science works and is only perpetuating misinformation to her unsuspecting students.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Here's a model that does a better job of describing how science actually works. I like it because it makes clear the importance of theory, and doesn't encourage the misconceptions that science is a just a series of experiments, and that "hypotheses become theories become laws":

    Last edited by Taylor; 10-22-10 at 05:30 PM.

  7. #277
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Gravity started out as a hypothesis.. We know "what goes up must come down" and about falling apples, but the concept that it is gravity doing it and what gravity actually is- is a theory. Newton's hypothesis of gravity involved three laws of movement, which he tested with observation and demonstrated to others to support his hypothesis.. After that testing and additional testing, his hypothesis became known as the "Newton's law of universal gravitation."
    Nope, that's a bunch of crap. As I said earlier, laws are descriptive generalizations of observations, and this is true of the Law of Gravity. A Theory of Gravity would attempt to explain what we observe.

    Newton discusses this difference in Principia:
    "Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterward rendered general by deduction. Thus it was the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive forces of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea."
    Newton: Principia mathematica

  8. #278
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Flow charts, LOL.

    Processes and procedures, procedural processes, processed procedures........

    These are for those in the cubicles.

  9. #279
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Nope, that's a bunch of crap. As I said earlier, laws are descriptive generalizations of observations, and this is true of the Law of Gravity. A Theory of Gravity would attempt to explain what we observe.

    Newton discusses this difference in Principia:
    "Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterward rendered general by deduction. Thus it was the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive forces of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea."
    Newton: Principia mathematica
    I knew I shouldn't have thrown you another bone, but I did..

    You are not arguing with me about the fallibility of science anymore, now it's Netwon's hypothesis... distraction as usual. You wouldn't be so annoying if you were not so wrong and condescending "bunch of crap"... No, what I said wasn't a bunch of crap. Newton did have a hypothesis.

    Hitherto, we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power.
    The first part says what he had already explained, the second part says what he will not offer to explain.. therefore he offers no hypothesis on the cause of gravity

    That is all your quote is showing. His opinion is that science shouldn't be tasked with answering that question, and that gravity exists and acts according to the laws which he previously explained.

    Newton's hypothesis was that forces between heavenly bodies were the same type of force as terrestrial gravity.

    According to Newton's hypothesis, the weight of a body on Earth is the resultant of the attraction of each mass point on Earth of each mass point of the body. The magnitude of the force, by which Earth attracts a body, that is, its weight, must therefore be proportional to its mass, as is indeed the case.
    Newton'

    Newton's Hypothesis: The forces between heavenly bodies are the same type of force as terrestrial gravity.

    What kind of force was it? It probably wasn't magnetic, since magnetic forces have nothing to do with mass.

    Then came Newton's great insight. Lying under an apple tree and looking up at the moon in the sky, he saw an apple fall. Might not the earth also attract the moon with the same kind of gravitational force? The moon orbits the earth in the same way that the planets orbit the sun, so maybe the earth's force on the falling apple, the earth's force on the moon, and the sun's force on a planet were all the same type of force.

    There was an easy way to test this hypothesis numerically. If it was true, then we would expect the gravitational forces exerted by the earth to follow the same F m/r2 rule as the forces exerted by the sun, but with a different constant of proportionality appropriate to the earth's gravitational strength. The issue arises now of how to define the distance, r, between the earth and the apple.

    An apple in England is closer to some parts of the earth than to others, but suppose we take r to be the distance from the center of the earth to the apple, i.e., the radius of the earth. (The issue of how to measure r did not arise in the analysis of the planets' motions because the sun and planets are so small compared to the distances separating them.) Calling the proportionality constant k, we have

    Fearth on apple = k mapple/r2 earth

    Fearth on moon = k mmoon/d2 earth-moon .

    Newton's second law says a = F/m, so

    aapple = k / r2 earth

    amoon = k / d2 earth-moon .

    The Greek astronomer Hipparchus had already found 2000 years before that the distance from the earth to the moon was about 60 times the radius of the earth, so if Newton's hypothesis was right, the acceleration of the moon would have to be 602 = 3600 times less than the acceleration of the falling apple.


    g / The moon's acceleration is 602 = 3600 times smaller than the apple's.
    Applying a = v2/r to the acceleration of the moon yielded an acceleration that was indeed 3600 times smaller than 9.8 m/s2, and Newton was convinced he had unlocked the secret of the mysterious force that kept the moon and planets in their orbits.
    Newton's Law of Gravity (F) = Gm1 - m(sq) / r(sq)

    That equation exists because of his hypothesis..

    So gravity is both a law and theory like Critical Thinking already said. Scientific concepts are not strictly one thing or the other, which is why evolution is both theory and fact.

    Newton's research better defined the Law of Gravity, which gave credence to this hypothesis. He didn't change the law, he better defined the law. The laws of motion and Newton's research came to be known as the Newtonian Law of Gravity, which is indicative of greater understanding of gravity in the scientific community.

    Newton’s Law of Gravity


    I am done with this debate now. Reading your statements actually causes my blood pressure to rise, because you are spouting off a "bunch of crap." You came into the debate foolishly trying to teach me something and acting superior in knowledge and understanding.

    You tried to argue that science is fallible by saying the community didn't take Wegner's "theory" as fact immediately, so the community was wrong. Then you thought I embarrassed myself by knowing Plate Tectonics is a theory and not a fact.. You haven't proven yourself intellectually superior to me in anyway as far as I am concerned, and I am not gloating. I am just really frustrated that you have attempted to diminished science and the method, then started playing semantics with it, and then started acting as if you know more about it.

    I won't claim to be a big expert in science.. lots of people know more than me, and a lot more people know more than you. But to act like you have something to teach me, and pretending to not be subjectively judging the practice and turning everything into semantics whilst insulting me- is just absurd. I can't continue this debate. You have nothing to offer, except heart palpitations.

  10. #280
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    I'm wondering...

    How did this thread go from discussing the constitutionality of Separation of Church and State to discussing the laws of gravity and the solar system?

    You guys must be extremely bored.

Page 28 of 30 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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