• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Well, science doesn't know everything!"

Re: Re: "Well, science doesn't know everything!"

Interesting Ian said:
I would just say you are in error. I would also say that anyone who has the remotest inkling of what science is and how it progresses, would say the same thing.
Click to expand...

Ian, please explain to retract this statement.

Or, continue being the useless, stupid troll you are. Whatever...
 
Is it just me or is it Ironic that these conversations take place over the Internet. Look at the godamn monitor infront of you and tell me science doesn't work!

Anyway as Tricky said, science doesn't know anything actually, is a good reply, cause if they don't understand the reply you have proof they don't understand science!
 
Prester John said:
Is it just me or is it Ironic that these conversations take place over the Internet. Look at the godamn monitor infront of you and tell me science doesn't work!

Anyway as Tricky said, science doesn't know anything actually, is a good reply, cause if they don't understand the reply you have proof they don't understand science!
Click to expand...

Who has said science doesn't work?
 
Considering I don't know who you are referring to, probably not. Just a name I like to use online :)
 
I might be inclined to say, "Of course science doesn't know everything. It's a tool used to find things out, and explain why things are the way they are. And the more we find out, the more we want to know."

Or, and correct me if I'm wrong, as Stephen J. Gould said, "Science is self-correcting. Pseudoscience is not."

edit to add: whew! This nearly turned into another All-About-Ian thread.
 
Interesting Ian said:


Who has said science doesn't work?
Click to expand...

I choose the wording delibrately because i do not characterise science as sentient, so therefore it cannot "know" anything. It is a methodology and therfore either works or doesn't work. I think the mischaracterisation of science as "knowing" is a fundamental although common error. Loose misuse of the phrase contributes to the misunderstanding of science and how it operates.

Are faith and science opposites?
 
My response to that particular piece of BS has always been "No, science doesn't know everything, but the fact that is a far cry from saying that it knows nothing."

That's what I use when I don't want to get into the whole "science isn't a person, it's a methodology" argument.
 
My favorite is the offshoot "Science can't know everything!"

#1. Of course science can't know everything. Science is a process, not a person, or a library.

#2. Oh, you meant science can't investigate everything? Prove it.

*Edit.* Damn, I seem to be echoing other people a lot today. This isn't the first message board I've done this on. Ah well. :(
 
Psi Baba said:
"Science doesn't know everything!"
Click to expand...

Oh, I take it you didn't see the report, Scientists announced last week that they did know everything, and the answers normally are 42.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Dear me! Go do a course on the history and philosophy of science.
Click to expand...

OK, so you won't explain why PsiBaba is wrong.

Do you know yourself why he is wrong?
 
CFLarsen said:


OK, so you won't explain why PsiBaba is wrong.

Do you know yourself why he is wrong?
Click to expand...

Well of course I do, although I should point out that PsiBaba was joking anyway. Not that people like you and TLN realise this since you're both clueless when it comes to understanding the nature and scope of science.
 
doesn't know everything. On the other hand it doesn't know nothing either.

You might not know off the top of your head what the square root of 4378927489 is, but you can confidently say it isn't 3.
 
Interesting Ian said:


Well of course I do, although I should point out that PsiBaba was joking anyway. Not that people like you and TLN realise this since you're both clueless when it comes to understanding the nature and scope of science.
Click to expand...
I understand the nature and scope of joking, and you must be.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Well of course I do, although I should point out that PsiBaba was joking anyway. Not that people like you and TLN realise this since you're both clueless when it comes to understanding the nature and scope of science.
Click to expand...
If you were just responding to PsiBaba's nonserious response, why bother quoting his entire post? I mean, you only cut off two sentences. How is everyone supposed to understand your gnomic pronouncements when you refuse to provide any context for them?
 
carrot said:
If you were just responding to PsiBaba's nonserious response, why bother quoting his entire post? I mean, you only cut off two sentences. How is everyone supposed to understand your gnomic pronouncements when you refuse to provide any context for them?
Click to expand...
That's Ian's arsenal. He doesn't want people to understand him. When you ask him to clarify something, he can then respond with a superior attitude that you're an idiot for not understanding him. It's a mental Catch-22, and in his mind, he wins every round.
 
Nigel said:
That's Ian's arsenal. He doesn't want people to understand him. When you ask him to clarify something, he can then respond with a superior attitude that you're an idiot for not understanding him. It's a mental Catch-22, and in his mind, he wins every round.
Click to expand...
Ah. That would be the exhortation to take a history and philosophy of science course, then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom