December 21, 2012

[jkdubs2]

Science doesn't 'prove' anything. Science Can’t Prove Anything | Proslogion

Asking why the sun sets and rises every day and then finding data to help come up with a hypothesis is a lot different than assuming that the sun revolves around the earth and then looking for data to support that idea.

This is all off of the main point, though. The mayan calendar was made ambiguous enough to where we really have no idea what is going to happen, if anything. Add on the inquisition destroying much of the historical documentation and you have a recipe for wild speculation ranging from the moderately plausible to the completely insane.

Without going off the tracks again on what is science and whatever, the basic question being posed is whether or not anyone has any actual evidence of what the mayan prophecy entails as opposed to the 'spaghetti at the wall' approach that is the beloved crutch of conspiracy theorists.

Well actually, being the op of the thread what I really created this thread about was to hear people's ideas on what COULD happen and what they think would happen IF it were true. fun theories they heard about, not ways to prove it isn't going to happen. Lol. Why can't I just hear some cool ideas on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Haha. No ideas about what could happen?...no need to comment.

 

[jetajockey]

Well actually, being the op of the thread what I really created this thread about was to hear people's ideas on what COULD happen and what they think would happen IF it were true. fun theories they heard about, not ways to prove it isn't going to happen. Lol. Why can't I just hear some cool ideas on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Haha. No ideas about what could happen?...no need to comment.

Well, you could start by creating a thread that asks that question rather than one that asks this:

I know everyone has a different idea on this but I wanted to hear what everyone thinks of "The End is Nigh" theory for the Mayan calendar, seeing as this is the year everyone's been talking about for awhile. Lol. Thought it would be fun. Here goes my theory on it.

<snip>

Poke holes in my theory and tell me your own!

Consider your theory poked.

 

[jkdubs2]

I said poke holes in my theory and tell me your own. I'm fine with the poking. Yes my theory is thouroghly poked I could have poked holes in it myself and I asked people to poke holes in my idea, doesn't mean I don't get to defend my view. But I never asked them to tell me that the one guy who wrote that science should be the falsification of ideas and that science couldn't prove anything because experiments are flawed (which is true, but if there was a perfect experiment then wouldn't it mean it was true and proven?, and how do we know that science hasn't done perfect experiments at this point and just didn't know it?) is the way I had to think about science. I didn't realized that Karl popper made the rules of science. If we all just followed Hitlers rule of what made the perfect Race the perfect race, then I guess we'd all be perfect by now and proving things in science because we are perfect. Its ridiculous to think that what one person says something should be, is the only way it should be.

 

[jetajockey]

I said poke holes in my theory and tell me your own. I'm fine with the poking. Yes my theory is thouroghly poked I could have poked holes in it myself and I asked people to poke holes in my idea, doesn't mean I don't get to defend my view.

Defend away, you are the one who wants to change the topic, lol.

But I never asked them to tell me that the one guy who wrote that science should be the falsification of ideas and that science couldn't prove anything because experiments are flawed (which is true, but if there was a perfect experiment then wouldn't it mean it was true and proven?, and how do we know that science hasn't done perfect experiments at this point and just didn't know it?) is the way I had to think about science.

I'm not telling you about what one guy's writing was, just giving a counter argument with some information from real scientists to respond to your statement that science can prove things.

I didn't realized that Karl popper made the rules of science. If we all just followed Hitlers rule of what made the perfect Race the perfect race, then I guess we'd all be perfect by now and proving things in science because we are perfect. Its ridiculous to think that what one person says something should be, is the only way it should be.

No one said that he made any rules of science, but he's more of a scientist than anyone here has claimed to be, so I would say he has some credibility in a discussion on science. I've never said that his way of thinking is the only way it should be, I just used it as a counterpoint to your claim. That's what people do when they disagree about something in a debate, they bring up counterpoints and evidence to try to prove or defend their position. Once they run out of evidence or don't have any they detract and change the subject by making sharp worded analogies.

 

[jkdubs2]

Defend away, you are the one who wants to change the topic, lol.

I'm not telling you about what one guy's writing was, just giving a counter argument with some information from real scientists to respond to your statement that science can prove things.

No one said that he made any rules of science, but he's more of a scientist than anyone here has claimed to be, so I would say he has some credibility in a discussion on science. I've never said that his way of thinking is the only way it should be, I just used it as a counterpoint to your claim. That's what people do when they disagree about something in a debate, they bring up counterpoints and evidence to try to prove or defend their position. Once they run out of evidence or don't have any they detract and change the subject by making sharp worded analogies.

I will defend my view, thank you.

So I assume that using the evidence of a different situation to prove that single minded thinking is not always the best approach to a specific idea only amounts to me having no counter arguments. Right... Just sharp.

So i assume if science it self cannot prove anything is true, then the scientist who said this cannot scientifically prove that science cannot prove anything, thus he has created himself quite a paradox and we shall never know the answer.

 

[Alyxx]

The goal of the scientific method isn't to prove some things true, but to prove things false. If you can prove that the null hypothesis is false, it lends strength to your hypothesis. Any good scientist knows this.

 

[paytertot]

This got way out of my interest zone. Lol.

 

[Gboy66]

This got way out of my interest zone. Lol.

Lol..same. So paytertot..i think this is a great thread for you to share your zombie plan!!! Lets see it in detail!

 

[jkdubs2]

The goal of the scientific method isn't to prove some things true, but to prove things false. If you can prove that the null hypothesis is false, it lends strength to your hypothesis. Any good scientist knows this.

So let's say that, if science cannot prove things to be true, then all the constants used in science must not be constants at all (being that they cannot be proven to be constant) therefor one can logically conclude the the basis of the scientific method is not the proper way to go about conducting a scientific experiment. Thus we still enter the realm of another paradox.

 

[jkdubs2]

Lol..same. So paytertot..i think this is a great thread for you to share your zombie plan!!! Lets see it in detail!

Good plan! Let's hear it!

 

[paytertot]

Oh gosh >.< lol
Well.. its nothing really exciting, I mean I just have a plan in my mind, definitely not written down anywhere, like in say a binder or anything... Cuz that would be crazy... lol
Really tho its nothing special, just what I would take with me and where we would go. It has a few articles in there. A few scenarios. It's super lame and in no way interesting. Plus I don't want to hijack the thread haha

Edit- Btw you can call me Payton. Lol

 

[jkdubs2]

No it's not a hijacking. This is the original intent of the thread. All u have to do is say " on December 21st, 2012 the Zombie Apocalypse will begin" and then it has to do with thread topic lol

 

[paytertot]

Lol maybe it will maybe it won't, but I would be ready if on December 21st 2012, the zombie apocalypse began.

 

[jkdubs2]

Lol maybe it will maybe it won't, but I would be ready if on December 21st 2012, the zombie apocalypse began.

Do tell! Wat kinda plans?

 

[Ibrahim]

Oh my goodness. I know this. But the people of earth believed that the world was flat back in Christopher Columbus' time(15th century) and thought he'd sail off the end of the earth instead he later found that the world was not flat therefore proving science wrong. What I was trying to say was that science makes mistakes all the time.

Oh ok lol.

 

[Alyxx]

So let's say that, if science cannot prove things to be true, then all the constants used in science must not be constants at all (being that they cannot be proven to be constant) therefor one can logically conclude the the basis of the scientific method is not the proper way to go about conducting a scientific experiment. Thus we still enter the realm of another paradox.

No, once a sufficient amount of proof is found, it can be accepted that something is true. However, when you do an experiment you set out to disprove your hypothesis. If you cannot do so, it can be assumed true. This is after numerous people have seen the same results over multiple replications of experiments, and can take years. Of course for things like the laws of physics, and any other laws, some things are known to be true through observations. Constants are proven through mathematics. It's no paradox, just a set way of going about things to try to reduce bias. Hypotheses must be falsifiable. Otherwise they cannot truly be tested. Once you disprove it many ways, you can be more certain that it is true than you can if you go into an experiment trying to prove it to be true and you end up with some evidence for it being true. It is essentially proving it true by disproving every other possible cause.

 

[Alyxx]

Also, a better argument than "people thought the world was flat" is that people thought the earth was center of the universe. People actually did believe that for a long time, until it was proven mathematically. Even then, the idea took a very long time to be generally accepted because it went against the dogma of the Church at that time. Actually, it was still against official Catholic dogma until the 70s.
Sorry for the double post, I thought I clicked edit not reply.

 

[paytertot]

Do tell! Wat kinda plans?

These kinda plans

 

[jkdubs2]

No, once a sufficient amount of proof is found, it can be accepted that something is true. However, when you do an experiment you set out to disprove your hypothesis. If you cannot do so, it can be assumed true. This is after numerous people have seen the same results over multiple replications of experiments, and can take years. Of course for things like the laws of physics, and any other laws, some things are known to be true through observations. Constants are proven through mathematics. It's no paradox, just a set way of going about things to try to reduce bias. Hypotheses must be falsifiable. Otherwise they cannot truly be tested. Once you disprove it many ways, you can be more certain that it is true than you can if you go into an experiment trying to prove it to be true and you end up with some evidence for it being true. It is essentially proving it true by disproving every other possible cause.

But I shall use some of your own science against you in this instance. Refer back to the article jeta jockey provided. In it there is a point where they say that even though something can be replicated countless times this does not make it proven to be true only thought to be true. you never know if something could change to produce a different outcome. So, if the scientific method must use constants and variables to be able to falsify a hypothesis and the constants (which are not proven to be true) are indeed possible variables themselves then you have no constants at all and the scientific method falls apart again. Some constants may be mathematical but that doesn't mean you will receive the same answer every time you do the math, at least according to Karl Popper.

 

[jkdubs2]

These kinda plans

Hahahaha that's awesome. I have a plan for economic collapse and if theres war in america but its all in my head.