Let's talk about psychics

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
To add to (and not detract from) your post.
Science is limited.
That which is known (that can be scientifically proven to be true) is dwarfed by that which is not (yet) known.
It is downright silly to argue that something is not true/real if it is not scientifically proven to be true/real.
Non-proof is not proof.
*Offtopic*
I really do wish you'd step away from using the word "proof" and its derivatives in conjunction with science. Even in instances where the evidence is empirical, it is still evidence, not proof.
Science is not limited. Humanity is limited.
The absence of evidence is merely ignorance and which is why it's called an argument from ignorance.

You really should brush up on that speed of dark video again. What we don't know is an ever expanding circle that far outpaces what we do know.
Every time people using the scientific method (i.e. science) discovers something new, or provides evidence for a standing theory, it clarifies what we do know but more importantly shows us how much we don't know by raising more questions about what we've discovered than we know to answer.
Arguably, we're going to be in a perpetual state of ignorance for eternity, but it does not devalue the state of our knowledge in any way because it is growing as well.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,836
*Offtopic*
I really do wish you'd step away from using the word "proof" and its derivatives in conjunction with science. Even in instances where the evidence is empirical, it is still evidence, not proof.
Science is not limited. Humanity is limited.
The absence of evidence is merely ignorance and which is why it's called an argument from ignorance.

You really should brush up on that speed of dark video again. What we don't know is an ever expanding circle that far outpaces what we do know.
Every time people using the scientific method (i.e. science) discovers something new, or provides evidence for a standing theory, it clarifies what we do know but more importantly shows us how much we don't know by raising more questions about what we've discovered than we know to answer.
Arguably, we're going to be in a perpetual state of ignorance for eternity, but it does not devalue the state of our knowledge in any way because it is growing as well.
Science is (should be) about determining the physical laws of nature - its about determining what reality is.
I don't have a problem with science - I am all for science.
I however have a problem with BS - more specifically, I have a problem with BS "science" and BS "studies".

Science is (supposed to be) about determining the truth of things, and must not be used to mislead/lie/manipulate.
As such, I have a problem with "Scientism".
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,335
Science is (should be) about determining the physical laws of nature - its about determining what reality is.
I don't have a problem with science - I am all for science.
I however have a problem with BS - more specifically, I have a problem with BS "science" and BS "studies".

Science is (supposed to be) about determining the truth of things, and must not be used to mislead/lie/manipulate.
As such, I have a problem with "Scientism".
Have you gone to all the Universities across the world, to correct them on their understanding of science, yet?
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
As such, I have a problem with "Scientism".
It occurs to me that you stand against nothing, which is essentially what lies are. Getting all righteous indignation against scientism, which means that because you're already committed to such a righteous cause, that you don't have to commit to anything real.
While you're waving your arms about Don Quixote, there are people using their chemistry degrees for real science.
 
Top