View Poll Results: Is science corrupt?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, science is very corrupt

    4 11.76%
  • Yes, science is somewhat corrupt

    5 14.71%
  • Yes, science is corrupt and bias

    0 0%
  • No, science cannot be corrupt because it deals with observation

    4 11.76%
  • No, science is not corrupt

    22 64.71%
  • All science is flawed

    3 8.82%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Is science corrupt?

  1. #41
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is science corrupt?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    An incomplete picture of reality is flawed.
    No, an incomplete picture of reality is merely incomplete.

    An inaccurate picture of reality is flawed.

    And that would be anything that claims to have more than an incomplete picture of reality.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #42
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,549

    Re: Is science corrupt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Not at all. If I say religion is corrupt, I am talking about all religion. Not just Christianity or Islam. Do you agree? Or do you not? If you call "science" corrupt.
    Hmmm... I think you missed some of what I said...

    Saying science can be corrupted is not saying it all is, or it should be thrown out. - Blackdog

    So no, I don't except blanket generalizations. I call them out for what they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Then you are calling out the "corruption" of science itself.
    No I am not. I have pointed it out above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Not of a particular scientist. You can't pick an choose when you use such wording.
    Yes I can, and I did. Even used the dictionary to back up my statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Creationism and the people who promote it are corrupt.
    Depends on which ones you are talking about. Again blanket statements are more often then not, untrue.

    Since creationism also includes abiogenesis, the science is still out on that one. Old earth Christians (like myself) also believe in evolution, just not on such a large scale as some scientist say. I am no scientist, but I have not seen any real proof of an anphibian becoming a mammle etc. Since the jury is also still out on that one as well, it is again nothing but an untrue blanket statement on your part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Science itself isn't.
    I most certainly can be.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 02-10-10 at 11:26 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  3. #43
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Is science corrupt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Hmmm... I think you missed some of what I said...

    Saying science can be corrupted is not saying it all is, or it should be thrown out. - Blackdog

    So no, I don't except blanket generalizations. I call them out for what they are.
    No I am not. I have pointed it out above.

    Yes I can, and I did. Even used the dictionary to back up my statement.[/quote]

    There is no middle ground on this what so ever. Either you think science is corrupt. Or you do not.

    Depends on which ones you are talking about. Again blanket statements are more often then not, untrue.
    Show me a single piece of evidence to contradict it?

    Since creationism also includes abiogenesis, the science is still out on that one.
    Creationism can not possibly include abiogenesis because it does not understand what abiogenesis is to begin with. Creationists have tried to calculate the possibility of abiogenesis happening as a way of discrediting it and inserting a belief in a "creator". That in and of itself proves they can not possibly understand what it is.

    It is like saying that because you can spend an eternity playing the lotery and only once in that eternity you win, then it is impossible to win the lottery without being told what the numbers are by somebody else. That is a fallacy because the chances of people picking out lottery winning numbers are in the billions. Yet every month we have people randomly pick out lottery numbers and winning. Not only that but we have the same occurrence time, after time, after time.

    Old earth Christians (like myself) also believe in evolution, just not on such a large scale as some scientist say. I am no scientist, but I have not seen any real proof of an anphibian becoming a mammle etc. Since the jury is also still out on that one as well, it is again nothing but an untrue blanket statement on your part.
    Because that is not how evolution works. You do not go from an amphibian to a mammal through evolution. You go through various stages and these stages are minuscule. And even then it does not guarantee that you will get B from A. Example. It is indisputable that birds and extinct dinosaurs are related. This is in part because certain traits are directly recognizable from one extinct group to the next. The same goes for pretty much every species of animal. You can see where these groups split from each other and the further up the chain you go there more distant relationships you see with other animals.

    I most certainly can be.
    Not really. You either think science is corrupt or you do not.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #44
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,549

    Re: Is science corrupt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    There is no middle ground on this what so ever. Either you think science is corrupt. Or you do not.
    Right, because you say so? Excuse me while I laugh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Show me a single piece of evidence to contradict it?
    Look at your post, nothing but blanket statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Creationism can not possibly include abiogenesis because it does not understand what abiogenesis is to begin with.
    This is absolutely not true. Just because they think good created the "big bang" for example has little to do with understanding it.

    Another bad blanket statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Creationists have tried to calculate the possibility of abiogenesis happening as a way of discrediting it and inserting a belief in a "creator".
    Some have, and some have not. More blanket statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    That in and of itself proves they can not possibly understand what it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    It is like saying that because you can spend an eternity playing the lotery and only once in that eternity you win, then it is impossible to win the lottery without being told what the numbers are by somebody else. That is a fallacy because the chances of people picking out lottery winning numbers are in the billions. Yet every month we have people randomly pick out lottery numbers and winning. Not only that but we have the same occurrence time, after time, after time.
    So what? Has nothing to do with my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Because that is not how evolution works. You do not go from an amphibian to a mammal through evolution. You go through various stages and these stages are minuscule. And even then it does not guarantee that you will get B from A. Example. It is indisputable that birds and extinct dinosaurs are related.
    They are related, so what again? We have similar relations in the animal kingdom. I mean we are all animals in the end.

    Again you are trying to argue against my example rather than the point of my post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    This is in part because certain traits are directly recognizable from one extinct group to the next. The same goes for pretty much every species of animal. You can see where these groups split from each other and the further up the chain you go there more distant relationships you see with other animals.
    Has nothing to do with my post. It is an example, nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Not really. You either think science is corrupt or you do not.
    OK I guess you can read my mind. Tell me what I am thinking now?
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  5. #45
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,729

    Re: Is science corrupt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Creationism and the people who promote it are corrupt. Science itself isn't.
    I dont disagree with much of what you wrote...but i do disagree with the last line.

    Agree or disagree that creationism is real...those that promote the concept are dedicated to their belief as are the global warming crowd. The difference would be that at least some if not many are deliberately manufacturing evidence for global warming and presenting that as 'proof' of AGW, and THAT is corrupt.

  6. #46
    blond bombshell

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    10-19-12 @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: Is science corrupt?

    Science is something you do a "thing".
    The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

  7. #47
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Is science corrupt?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    All science is flawed. Science cannot build accurate models of reality as it requires too many assumptions.
    its strange that for such an inaccurate methodology you nonetheless use and rely on the fruits of its accomplishments daily.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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