GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum

Volcano Girl

Junior Member

Offline

Geologist

Posts: 66

'Real' Science
Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:09pm

I've just been browsing through the latest posts and i've seen this used by our estemed admin, but i'm curious as to what is meant by this. There are many scientific fields and there are many fields that claim to be science but fail epicly.

As someone with a degree in Geology i know that my science is real, it's one of the youngest of the main sciences (only 200 or so years old) and even up until a short number of decades ago is still finding new and exciting things (by this i mean the development of Plate Tectonics). The starting point for any one learning the subject is the same as the origins of the subject itself, i.e. you start by learning about the various rocks and mineral. This is done typically in the lab/classroom at first and then moving out into the field to put all the relationships into place. There's also the fun that is mineralogy and all the remote sensing techniques that are used.

So, what else is a real science? My money goes in with anything that has an effective peer review process.

Back to top

I'm sorry if i start to sneeze and cough, however i'm allergic to nonsense pseudoscience.

IP Logged

glowingape

Full Member

Offline

wut?

Posts: 135

Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #1 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:13pm

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:09pm:

So, what else is a real science? My money goes in with anything that has an effective peer review process.

My money is peer-reviewed process as well, since you need to present your conclusions to the other scientists to be rigorously and retested for confirmation or rejection.

If that doesn't happen, we could just as well go and play guessing games.

Back to top

Quote:

Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds. Moron! ~ GSFY

Quote:

Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process. ~ GSFY

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #2 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:14pm

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:09pm:

I've just been browsing through the latest posts and i've seen this used by our estemed admin, but i'm curious as to what is meant by this. There are many scientific fields and there are many fields that claim to be science but fail epicly.

As someone with a degree in Geology i know that my science is real, it's one of the youngest of the main sciences (only 200 or so years old) and even up until a short number of decades ago is still finding new and exciting things (by this i mean the development of Plate Tectonics). The starting point for any one learning the subject is the same as the origins of the subject itself, i.e. you start by learning about the various rocks and mineral. This is done typically in the lab/classroom at first and then moving out into the field to put all the relationships into place. There's also the fun that is mineralogy and all the remote sensing techniques that are used.

So, what else is a real science? My money goes in with anything that has an effective peer review process.

Real science follows real scientific methods. That is the foundation of science.

Is it testable, does it have the same results over and over unfailing? If it fails then discard and work on another approach.

Real science seeks to find the truth.

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

glowingape Full Member Offline wut? Posts: 135	Re: 'Real' Science Reply #3 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:19pm GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:14pm: Real science follows real scientific methods. That is the foundation of science. And that is....? Since you so happily reject peer-reviewed papers (and rather go with the ones, that creotards produce), what is the "proper scientific method"?
Back to top	Quote: Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds. Moron! ~ GSFY Quote: Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process. ~ GSFY IP Logged

Volcano Girl

Junior Member

Offline

Geologist

Posts: 66

Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #4 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:21pm

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:14pm:

1) Real science follows real scientific methods. That is the foundation of science.

2) Is it testable, does it have the same results over and over unfailing? If it fails then discard and work on another approach.

3) Real science seeks to find the truth.

I've done the points thing to make it easier for me to reply to each statment.

1) Yes, all science does this, it's how science works.

2) Yep, all science does that. The general thing is to test stuff, if the testing doesn't show up any holes in the stuff then it's accepted until something else comes along that does a better job of explaining the phenomena.

3) Ummmm......no, there is not truth seeking in science. We leave that to religion and philosophy. Science mearly seems to provide us with an explanation/understanding of how the world and universe works.

Back to top

I'm sorry if i start to sneeze and cough, however i'm allergic to nonsense pseudoscience.

IP Logged

prolescum

Junior Member

Offline

LoLtering for the sake
of it

Posts: 93

Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #5 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 4:38pm

I agree with the majority view expressed here (ie the correct one) and the dictionary, as always.

Quote:

Real science follows real scientific methods. That is the foundation of science.

Is it testable, does it have the same results over and over unfailing? If it fails then discard and work on another approach.

Real science seeks to find the truth.

Quote:

I've done the points thing to make it easier for me to reply to each statment.

1) Yes, all science does this, it's how science works.

2) Yep, all science does that. The general thing is to test stuff, if the testing doesn't show up any holes in the stuff then it's accepted until something else comes along that does a better job of explaining the phenomena.

3) Ummmm......no, there is not truth seeking in science. We leave that to religion and philosophy. Science mearly seems to provide us with an explanation/understanding of how the world and universe works.

- Volcano Girl

If, according to GSFY, God = Truth (stated earlier by GSFY) and (real) science seeks the Truth then science, by this logic, is a search for God.

I'm certain this is b o l l o c k s and a good example of HEMG, using GSFY's interpretation of what he means by HEMG.

My irony meter has just exploded.

Back to top

http://dictionary.reference.com/

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

IP Logged

Volcano Girl

Junior Member

Offline

Geologist

Posts: 66

Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #6 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 4:58pm

prolescum wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 4:38pm:

- Volcano Girl

If, according to GSFY, God = Truth (stated earlier by GSFY) and (real) science seeks the Truth then science, by this logic, is a search for God.

I'm certain this is b o l l o c k s and a good example of HEMG, using GSFY's interpretation of what he means by HEMG.

My irony meter has just exploded.

S h i t.......i think my head just exploded at that thought.....

Back to top

I'm sorry if i start to sneeze and cough, however i'm allergic to nonsense pseudoscience.

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #7 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 5:24pm

If you are talking about the religion of Evodelusionism, there peers are in the Wicca, and Pagan as well as Shaman religions.

Do they submit their papers to the religious leaders of those religions?
Does that make them "science".

Evodelusionism has no evidence, therefor it is not science.

Do you have any evidence for Evodelusionism that you would like to discuss. If you don't have any evidence for Evodelusionism, then it is not science but is a pseudo science and is part of a pagan religion from over 2600 years ago.

In 40 years of study on this, I have not seen any evidence for evolution. Just evidence of genetic stability and extinction in the REAL world.

Magical processes and mystical causes are not part of science.

There are no mystical causes in the truth.

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #8 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 5:26pm

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:21pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:14pm:

1) Real science follows real scientific methods. That is the foundation of science.

2) Is it testable, does it have the same results over and over unfailing? If it fails then discard and work on another approach.

3) Real science seeks to find the truth.

I've done the points thing to make it easier for me to reply to each statment.

1) Yes, all science does this, it's how science works.

2) Yep, all science does that. The general thing is to test stuff, if the testing doesn't show up any holes in the stuff then it's accepted until something else comes along that does a better job of explaining the phenomena.

3) Ummmm......no, there is not truth seeking in science. We leave that to religion and philosophy. Science mearly seems to provide us with an explanation/understanding of how the world and universe works.

Thank you for pointing out that you would accept b u l l S h i t over truth any day.

If you are not seeking to find the truth in science, then you are only seeking to perpetuate your f**king beliefs.

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

glowingape Full Member Offline wut? Posts: 135	Re: 'Real' Science Reply #9 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 5:29pm GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 5:26pm: If you are not seeking to find the truth in science, then you are only seeking to perpetuate your f**king beliefs. And the "truth" you're talking about is...
Back to top	Quote: Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds. Moron! ~ GSFY Quote: Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process. ~ GSFY IP Logged

prolescum

Junior Member

Offline

LoLtering for the sake
of it

Posts: 93

Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #10 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 5:59pm

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 5:24pm:

If you are talking about the religion of Evodelusionism, there peers are in the Wicca, and Pagan as well as Shaman religions.

Evodelusionism is a term that you made up. There's no such thing as an evodelusionist. You might as well say that they are all best friends with cheese and spend most of their time making beds in hospitals.

Quote:

Do they submit their papers to the religious leaders of those religions?
Does that make them "science".

Lol. The people you define as evodelusionists, you know, scientists unlike yourself, do in fact submit papers which are then scrutinised and tested.

Quote:

Evodelusionism has no evidence, therefor it is not science.

Cruntelstalkmanuja has no evidence, therefore it is not science.

Quote:

Do you have any evidence for Evodelusionism that you would like to discuss.

You made it up, you discuss it. This is the 'Neutral Evolution forum' for the discussion of evolution, not nonsense.

Quote:

If you don't have any evidence for Evodelusionism, then it is not science but is a pseudo science and is part of a pagan religion from over 2600 years ago.

Classic. You don't need evidence for evodelusionism as it doesn't exist. It's a term that only you and a few concerned about your mental health are aware of so whether you call it a pseudo-science or a fish matters little.

Quote:

In 340 years of study on this, I have not seen any evidence for evolution.

I thought you'd only studied it for 40 years? Are you Methusela?

Quote:

Just evidence of genetic stability and extinction in the REAL world.
Magical processes and mystical causes are not part of science.

You've yet to answer a single question regarding your own take on life, the universe and everything. Why don't you create a thread where instead of lambasting those who you currently disagree with, why not put your money where your mouth is and give us your full philosophy? Wassa matter, chicken?

Quote:

There are no mystical causes in the truth.

There is no mystical anything.

Back to top

http://dictionary.reference.com/

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

IP Logged

prolescum Junior Member Offline LoLtering for the sake of it Posts: 93	Re: 'Real' Science Reply #11 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 6:03pm GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 5:26pm: Thank you for pointing out that you would accept b u l l S h i t over truth any day. If you are not seeking to find the truth in science, then you are only seeking to perpetuate your fking beliefs. and Quote:** And the "truth" you're talking about is... - glowingape
Back to top	http://dictionary.reference.com/ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ http://www.merriam-webster.com/ IP Logged

Simianus

YaBB Newbies

Offline

Seek Truth!

Posts: 26

Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #12 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 6:35pm

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 5:26pm:

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:21pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:14pm:

1) Real science follows real scientific methods. That is the foundation of science.

2) Is it testable, does it have the same results over and over unfailing? If it fails then discard and work on another approach.

3) Real science seeks to find the truth.

I've done the points thing to make it easier for me to reply to each statment.

1) Yes, all science does this, it's how science works.

2) Yep, all science does that. The general thing is to test stuff, if the testing doesn't show up any holes in the stuff then it's accepted until something else comes along that does a better job of explaining the phenomena.

3) Ummmm......no, there is not truth seeking in science. We leave that to religion and philosophy. Science mearly seems to provide us with an explanation/understanding of how the world and universe works.

Thank you for pointing out that you would accept b u l l S h i t over truth any day.

If you are not seeking to find the truth in science, then you are only seeking to perpetuate your f**king beliefs.

Everything that comes out of our biological little heads is a belief. Everything we see and think is filtered by our limited faculties, our education, our experience, our biases, our mood, our mental state, and I could go on, but I'm sure you get the jist. The object of science is to give a satisfactory explanation for the world as we experience it, but once science purports to possess monopoly on truth it becomes unreliable. The closest we can get to scientific true is that which cannot be disproven. The scientific method, in a nutshell.

Ironically, science supports belief, only religion supports truth.

Back to top

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: 'Real' Science
Reply #13 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 7:04pm

Simianus wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 6:35pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 5:26pm:

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:21pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 3:14pm:

1) Real science follows real scientific methods. That is the foundation of science.

2) Is it testable, does it have the same results over and over unfailing? If it fails then discard and work on another approach.

3) Real science seeks to find the truth.

I've done the points thing to make it easier for me to reply to each statment.

1) Yes, all science does this, it's how science works.

2) Yep, all science does that. The general thing is to test stuff, if the testing doesn't show up any holes in the stuff then it's accepted until something else comes along that does a better job of explaining the phenomena.

3) Ummmm......no, there is not truth seeking in science. We leave that to religion and philosophy. Science mearly seems to provide us with an explanation/understanding of how the world and universe works.

Thank you for pointing out that you would accept b u l l S h i t over truth any day.

If you are not seeking to find the truth in science, then you are only seeking to perpetuate your f**king beliefs.

Everything that comes out of our biological little heads is a belief. Everything we see and think is filtered by our limited faculties, our education, our experience, our biases, our mood, our mental state, and I could go on, but I'm sure you get the jist. The object of science is to give a satisfactory explanation for the world as we experience it, but once science purports to possess monopoly on truth it becomes unreliable. The closest we can get to scientific true is that which cannot be disproven. The scientific method, in a nutshell.

Ironically, science supports belief, only religion supports truth.

In order to have a belief and not be considered to be insane, then what evidence do you have for evolution that is not based on assumptions, opinions, and is irrefutable and observable and shows any attempt at using the scientific method?

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

Simianus YaBB Newbies Offline Seek Truth! Posts: 26	Re: 'Real' Science Reply #14 - Dec 28^th, 2009 at 7:40pm Someone could prove to me tomorrow that the theory of Evolution is entirely misguided, but by missing my points completely you are not doing it today.
Back to top	IP Logged

	Welcome, Guest. Please Login
	Visit YaBB today