Incredible new stuff: Paintable Li ion battery!:

Originally posted by googlefudge
What on earth do you mean by "typical science bull"?

In fact lets go broader.

What do you think science is and how do you think it works?

I believe science to be a series of disprovable quandries. I believe it lacks the impotus which is why we still have religion in the game. What do you think science is?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I believe science to be a series of disprovable quandries. I believe it lacks the impotus which is why we still have religion in the game. What do you think science is?

I'll post a proper explanation of what science is tomorrow when I have the time but I would
still like you to have a go at explaining what you think it is because what you just said is yet
more nonsense.

Try posting an actual explanation of what you think science is AND how it works rather than
a glib and pithy response that doesn't mean anything.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I believe science to be a series of disprovable quandries. I believe it lacks the impotus which is why we still have religion in the game. What do you think science is?

Disprovable quandries. Wow. Lets see. Penicillin. Computers. Walking on the moon. Open heart surgery. Hubble space telescope. Radio waves. TV. Hard drives.Wow, why didn't I see it before. Unprovable quandries indeed.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Disprovable quandries. Wow. Lets see. Penicillin. Computers. Walking on the moon. Open heart surgery. Hubble space telescope. Radio waves. TV. Hard drives.Wow, why didn't I see it before. Unprovable quandries indeed.

Are you saying that there are aspects of science that aren't disprobable?

I admit there's a lot of evidence to the contrary but the nature of science is that everything is disprovable.

That's why science is retrospective and antiquated. There I said it. Science hasn't got the kahoona's to carry us into the future.

Instead we're gonna let a bunch of whacked out backpatters who have somehow managed to spell a three letter word to be in charge.

I am proposing that we upgrade science to futurism.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Are you saying that there are aspects of science that aren't disprobable?

I admit there's a lot of evidence to the contrary but the nature of science is that everything is disprovable.

That's why science is retrospective and antiquated. There I said it. Science hasn't got the kahoona's to carry us into the future.

Instead we're gonna let a bunch of ...[text shortened]... three letter word to be in charge.

I am proposing that we upgrade science to futurism.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Are you posting here for a joke or are you serious?

Originally posted by googlefudge
You have no clue what you are talking about.

Are you posting here for a joke or are you serious?

I'm trying to deal with existence itself. Does that sound like a joke to you??
If so you're *****d!

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I'm trying to deal with existence itself. Does that sound like a joke to you??
If so you're *****d!

People joke about all kinds of things.

What you are saying is nonsense, I am just trying to establish whether you are being serious,
in which case I (and others) will happily discuss and explain where you are going wrong...
Or if you are just jerking us around I for one will just ignore you.

It takes time and effort to explain these things and I am not prepared to put that effort in unless
I am convinced that you are serious and want to discuss this seriously as opposed to just kidding
around.

Also if you are going to start swearing at me then I am also not going to bother talking to you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
People joke about all kinds of things.

What you are saying is nonsense, I am just trying to establish whether you are being serious,
in which case I (and others) will happily discuss and explain where you are going wrong...
Or if you are just jerking us around I for one will just ignore you.

It takes time and effort to explain these things and I ...[text shortened]... Also if you are going to start swearing at me then I am also not going to bother talking to you.

I'm serious. I'll even stake my life on it. But there's nothing I can write that will convince you.

My hypothesis is that the multiverse is a temporal loop.

Disprove if you can.

If you can't (which I think is impossible) then why isn't Science accepting this as our leading hypothesis for existence?

Why is Science scared of the future?

n.b sorry for swearing.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
That's why science is retrospective and antiquated. There I said it. Science hasn't got the kahoona's to carry us into the future.

Dasa, bog off.

Richard

Don't tell me to bog off you dick!

How exactly do you think using abstract acronyms is going to help your argument??

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Are you saying that there are aspects of science that aren't disprobable?

I admit there's a lot of evidence to the contrary but the nature of science is that everything is disprovable.

That's why science is retrospective and antiquated. There I said it. Science hasn't got the kahoona's to carry us into the future.

Instead we're gonna let a bunch of ...[text shortened]... three letter word to be in charge.

I am proposing that we upgrade science to futurism.

You simply couldn’t be more wrong.
Without science, we will have no future worthy of mention especially if we were to allow ignorance and religion to fill the gap left by having no science.
Without science, we will go back to the stone age. If you then put ignorance and religion in its place, it gets even worse.

Thanks to science, most of us live longer and healthier lives than what we would live if all else was equal but we had no science -just think of penicillin for starters; that discovery could not have credibly come about through stupid superstition or religion but only through reason/scientific method.

It just so happens that my life was once saved by penicillin when I had a very nearly fatal infection when I was a child -so without science, I for one will have NO future because I would be already dead and I would have had a truly horrible death with no hope. That with other examples is absolute proof that science can and already has given me and many others a better future and that, without science, we would be without any realistic hope.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Dasa, bog off.

Richard

Thumbs down.

Reserve judgement till after reasoned debate attempted, not before.

You don't want to participate then go some place else.

I will start a dedicated thread on this this evening so you can easily avoid the discussion.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Are you saying that there are aspects of science that aren't disprobable?

I admit there's a lot of evidence to the contrary but the nature of science is that everything is disprovable.

That's why science is retrospective and antiquated. There I said it. Science hasn't got the kahoona's to carry us into the future.

Instead we're gonna let a bunch of ...[text shortened]... three letter word to be in charge.

I am proposing that we upgrade science to futurism.

but the nature of science is that everything is disprovable.

I don't know were you got that from. Where DID you get that from?
The only thing that is disprovable in science is an incorrect/false theory.
A correct/true scientific theory cannot be disproved and therefore you are incorrect in saying “everything” in science is disprovable.

Perhaps you are confusing “disprovable” with “falsifiable”?
All scientific theories must be falsifiable but needn't be disprovable ( and, Obviously, should ideally be NOT disprovable ) for a theory can only be disprovable if it is BOTH falsifiable AND false:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
“...
That something is "falsifiable" does NOT mean it is false; rather, that IF it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.
...(my emphases)”

note the operative word “IF” in the above.
So clearly science is not about making theories that are disprovable if that is what you are implying?