[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.16301462 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Stat me, /tg/.

>> No.16301492

Max ranks in Gadgeteer

>> No.16301506

HOLY. FUCKING. SHIT. I must know where that comic is from.

>> No.16301525


Atomic Robo, the shadow from beyond time 3 I think.

>> No.16301530

God Emperor status.

>> No.16301532

We do not yet have the technological capabilities to stat Carl Sagan. But I am convinced that at some point in the future we will be able to. WITH SCIENCE!

>> No.16301534

Atomic Robo, Volume three- The Shadow from Beyond Time. Issue three.

Check /rs/

>> No.16301544

Can we just turn this into a Sagan thread? I'm in the mood. Sorry, OP.

>> No.16301563

Not strictly sagan but it contains one of my favorite pictures of him

>> No.16301573



>> No.16301581

Of course we can!

>> No.16301591

Pathfinder Oracle with the Heavens mystery, obviously. And isn't there a Merciful Spell feat or something?

>> No.16301593


Str: Who needs strength with a mind like this
Dex: Weed makes you flexible man.
Con: I follow it, but I don't consider it to be an absolute moral authority
Wis: I have insight beyond insight
Int: I can make an apple pie from scratch, and you need to be fairly intelligent to do that.
Cha: I had my own tv show and several books.

>> No.16301597

Some times I watch some of the old cosmos videos in youtube to calm me down or get sleepy I am not saying he was boring but his voice is so calming and relaxing.


>> No.16301624

This video will bring you to tears.

>> No.16301647

Fuck, I guess I have my next pathfinder character.

>> No.16301656


>> No.16301686

Oh... we'll miss you Carl. We'll miss you.

>> No.16301690

only claim to fame is that he made a nice mouth piece for a PBS show that never was that well rated.

generally regarded with disdain in the scientific community

so I would go with high charisma but not much else.

>> No.16301700


>> No.16301742


The coolest thing about him, if you ask me, is that he put the lie to the idea that hard science is spiritually empty, and actually thought and spoke about what the cosmos means in relation to the human experience. I can't remember anyone else in my lifetime doing quite so much of that, or quite so well.

>> No.16301765

14 Str, 11Dex, 13 Con, 24 Wis, 21Int, 22 Cha

Level 22 Archsage of Universal Truth

Special Abilities:

>Inspire Wonderment: Five uses per day, cause overwhelming sense of perspective in target which paralyzes them for one hour. No saving throw. Does not effect mindless creatures.

>Aura of Rationality: Total immunity to divine magic. +12 to all rolls against outsiders.

>Smoke Weed Everyday: Passive +6 bonus to all Lore, Concentration, Intimidation and Taunt checks

Special Equipment:

>+8 Turtleneck Robe of Truth: This ancient artifact renders its wearer immune to the effects of fear and any form of deception. It is indestructible.

>> No.16301770

I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson is doing a well enough job, and I certainly look forward to the upcoming Cosmos remake with him, but even then... he lacks some of the magic of Carl

>> No.16301781


Wait, there's going to be another cosmos update?

I thought it was only something I dreamed about.

>> No.16301784

Somebody get this man a medal!

>> No.16301797

Yeah, it's gonna be on Fox though... can anyone say Firefly?

>> No.16301813


News to me. Fantastic.



>> No.16301819

And its being co-witen by seth macfarlane

no joke, Seth is actually a major fan of the original cosmos series

>> No.16301824

He's right to an extent. He did determine the atmospheric composition of a few planets. But that was really work any physicist could have done. Sagan was competent but nothing special. His addition of philosophical shit to science pisses off most of those educated in science after the 90s.

Alright I feel the need to shit on a certain preconception that some people might have around here.

I have a MS and am slowly earning a PhD in geology as I work for a small oil company in Pennsylvania. And I am going to tell you this right now. The "philosopher scientist" exemplified by 4chan's retarded deification of Carl Sagan, is deader than dog shit. An I am glad it happened.

That enlightened scientist thing was total crap to begin with. Now we do not teach rationalism in science, because it is a pathetic philosophy and like all philosophies ultimately introduces subjectivity into observations and testing. Now we teach objectivity. Now, of course no one can be totally objective but it is massive improvement over the rationalist worldview, because it isn't a worldview at all.

What is taught now is that science is not some high minded quest for knowledge. It is the collection of objectively codefinable data, the creation and testing of hypotheses, and the creation of predictive models.

Myself and most post graduates I know that were educated after 1990 are pretty much mechanics that are a little smarter and have more training. And this has significantly improving the quality of our data collection and testing methodology.

>> No.16301828

I just checked. Directed by Seth MacFarlane...


>> No.16301834

Seriously? I'm not sure whether this is good or bad.

>> No.16301841

>New Cosmos
>Seth Mcfarlane is a writer
>airs on FOX

Jesus christ how horrifying.

>> No.16301851

>Stop having fun you guys!

>> No.16301861

>>Myself and most post graduates I know that were educated after 1990 are pretty much mechanics that are a little smarter and have more training. And this has significantly improving the quality of our data collection and testing methodology.

It also makes you utterly boring and uninspiring. Why would someone want to pursue a career in science if they have to spend 8 years in school to be a goddamn grease monkey in a white coat?

>> No.16301864

You know, this'd explain how science feels like it's been losing ground to resurgent theism over the last two decades.

Better methodology, sure, but "guys, guys, our experimental measurements are now approximately 17% more accurate!" doesn't exactly command wonderment or awe in the hearts and minds of the average person.

>> No.16301871

Sagan was a highly charismatic man who happened to be a moderately skilled scientist. Basically he's Bill Nye with a real degree and without the respect of his peers.

>> No.16301873

Sagan understood that science untempered by wonder was a path to nothing

>> No.16301884

This. They voluntarily politically castrated themselves and are wondering why public disdain for them keeps growing.

>> No.16301892


>Implying that in order to do science one has to forgo philosophy altogether.

>Not simply implying that the scientific method is a tool to obtain information, which can then be used philosophically.

>Not implying that science itself is a subsection of philosophy, but not a philosophical standpoint instead of not involving philosophy at all

>also implying that Rationalism is technically using some empiricism due to the fact that if sensory perceptions and recorded information causes something to be come irrational it is discarded

>> No.16301898


>> No.16301910


I like to think of Sagan as a spokesperson or "salesman" of Science to the masses. He was a figurehead who used simple yet colorful language to express grand and complex ideas so that people could understand it. Sagan was a missionary for science as a cultural force rather than as an academic institution. Without individuals like him to fight for hearts and minds the public is vulnerable to frauds and liars that would manipulate their understanding of the world for political and corporate gain.

>> No.16301923

Because it gets results. And frankly this is what science really is if it is getting shit done. And honestly I kinda like it that way.

You can have your politics, philosophy, religion and all the rest of it. Just keep it the fuck out of your science. Remain objective, completely devoid of any feeling or subjective evaluation that can fuck up your data. Shitty data makes shitty models.

Strangely enough 70% of those that earned a graduate degree in the last 10 years profess religiosity, including the international students. Atheism and theism are both seen as equally subjective, albeit based on divination of the existence of supernatural phenomena sanding beyond physical causality. The objective position being, I have no data nor is there any chance of accumulating any, so supernatualism has no interest to my observations. Whether you have an interest in supernaturalism outside of your work or not is up to you.

Basically science has no interest in atheism, gods, morals, ethics, or emotions. Other than the assessment of them as sociologic phenomena.

Same thing with politics, it's not that even everyone is totally apolitical or has no personal philosophy. It's that those that have those feeling keep them personal and separate from any statement they make as a scientist.

Basically scientists are no longer aloof as they once where. They have just separated themselves as man, with subjective opinions and beliefs from themselves as a scientist. And as scientists we remain silent with regards to the subjective. It is not our business.

>> No.16301930


This, EXACTLY this.

>> No.16301937

Science as a MECHANISM. But surely you must understand that science is more than that, that it MUST be more than that if humanity is going to get anywhere,

>> No.16301942

I question how strongly can individuals divorce themselves from their beliefs in the fashion you suggest.

>> No.16301955


>Implying atheism has anything about proving god does not exist

Let me guess, you assume that one can't be agnostic and atheist or agnostic and theist at the same time, right?

Science is at it's core an agnostic atheistic system because it assumes the non existence of god until evidence is provided to show the existence of the entity.

>> No.16301961

>Basically scientists are no longer aloof as they once where. They have just separated themselves as man, with subjective opinions and beliefs from themselves as a scientist. And as scientists we remain silent with regards to the subjective. It is not our business.

No. They've identified this as the goal to reach. Very few, and none of them who serve as liaisons to thee scientific community have been able to achieve it.

>> No.16301966

Read Sagan. Watch Sagan. He communicates beautifully that science does not dull our sense of wonder and awe at the world, but heighten it to dizzying levels that religion could only dream of. Religion tells us that we are made from dirt. Science tells us we are the result of a nigh four billion year long process and made from the ashes of dead stars. That's fucking wonder.

Sagan was able to communicate in clear and effective language the importance of science to both the individual and to society, and of the importance of critical thinking. He could simplify complex ideas without ever sounding patronizing or elitist.

For all that alone Sagan is worth all the praise he gets and more. The world desperately needs more peopl like him.

>> No.16301967

>Implying that in order to do science one has to forgo philosophy altogether.
Not in your personal life, just when doing the actual data collection and assessment.

>Not simply implying that the scientific method is a tool to obtain information, which can then be used philosophically.
Philosophy can deal with things that cannot be objectively measured nor tested, so no it doesn't work that way.

>Not implying that science itself is a subsection of philosophy, but not a philosophical standpoint instead of not involving philosophy at all
It came from natural philosophy but thankfully we have purged those connections recently.

>> No.16301971

I left out the first part of that post. "I agree."


>> No.16301981

>What is taught now is that science is not some high minded quest for knowledge. It is the collection of >objectively codefinable data, the creation and testing of hypotheses, and the creation of predictive models.

Are you implying that both cannot be accomplished by a person? Are you implying that high minded quests for knowledge are bad? If yes to either of these, fuck off. Humanity doesn't need you.

>> No.16301982

Atheism is the active belief that there is noting beyond the natural.
Beliefs have no place in science.

>> No.16301983

>purged those connections
Zeus, man, show a little humanity, why don't you?

>> No.16301996

>Science is at it's core an agnostic atheistic system because it assumes the non existence of god until evidence is provided to show the existence of the entity.

Science, when divorced from politics, assumes nothing in regards to spirituality.

>> No.16302001

He's making the idealized assumption that humanity's actual humanity can be divorced from the process of "science". Data can always be gathered in a logical and coherent manner, but interpretation of data must always fall upon the individual, and they will always bring bias to a table.

>> No.16302002

I look forward to another wonderful century of "It was in the pursuit of science!/We were just following orders!"

>> No.16302005

Look man, nobody is questioning science as a mechanism. I put maximum trust in the scientific method a pure way to get results. What we're saying is that it's helpful to apply scientific understanding to everyday life.

>> No.16302016

This. This bizzare zen idea that humans can separate themselves from their biases are absurd. The most we can do to prevent self-deception is to openly admit them and to admit they color everything we do.

>> No.16302018


'A' = without
'Theos' = god
'ism' = belief

Atheism strictly refers to being without belief in a god. Belief has nothing to do with claiming knowledge.

Agnostic Atheism: One is not sure if a god exists and does not assume the existence of a god
Gnostic Atheism: Claims to empirically know that no god exists.
Agnostic Theism: One is not sure if a god exists, but assumes the existence of said god
Gnostic Theism: Claims to empirically know that a god exists.

>> No.16302027

You mean get anywhere morally.

Do not think that I have no subjective opinions, I myself and a follower of the supernatural.

But what will get us to the stars is not wonder and philosophizing. Rather what we need is slow, plodding improvement to our technology, a desire to propagate, a need for resources, and a cold knawing hunger that will drive us to devour the entire cosmos given sufficient time.

But we only have 200 trillion years left, so best to start soon. Nuclear pulse propulsion will do for starters. And it is already a proven technology.

>> No.16302029

Yep. An event happens, but we're always going to have to record and interpret that event, whereupon our innate biases enter the equation. Empiricism, rationalism, objectivity, positivism, idealism, whatever - these are all essentially codified systems of biases that we accept or reject as operational definitions.

That said, I don't really see the problem - perfect objectivity is impossible, sure, but something does not need to be perfect in order for it to be useful or relevant.

Ah, epistemological debates and their underlying ontological roots...

>> No.16302042

>this thread


>peer review
>not found

Pic related


The science community may try to suppress their bias, but thy don't. A far better process than some weird zen mumbo jumbo. They use peer review. Look it up.

>> No.16302043

So Congress or Super Congress or the High King or whoever is running things is gonna look at you and go: "Nah. I want more tanks." And so it will be. Because you neglect the other half of the equation.

>> No.16302060


Wrong. There is one assumption in science. "Assume nonexistance until evidence is shown." If there was no evidence of gravity, then gravity does not exist.

Hypotheses are created with circumstantial evidence made from initial observation and logical processes. Then an experiment is created to test the hypothesis, and results are gleaned from the experiment, which is then redone repeatedly to get rid of statistical and human error from the project.

>> No.16302068

This. All human activity is inherently political, sociological, and ideological. To try to divorce yourself from it is crippling yourself for no apparent reason.

>> No.16302078

>I know nothing of science

That's pretty obvious. Anecdotal evidence is enough to create base assumptions. And there is more than enough anecdotal evidence that there is a supernatural. So the base assumption is that it is possible.

>> No.16302083

This is still no excuse to not minimize bias whenever possible.

>> No.16302088

>Hey guise I'm a super detached scientist
>There's evidence for the supernatural

>> No.16302093

Peer review is an excellent way to harrow error from the system, but when it comes to intrinsic biases, "submit your fundamental operational biases in front of a group of people who also share your fundamental operational biases due to similar training and education" is perhaps not the best way forward.

This is why interdisciplinary work is so crucial.

>> No.16302098

He's a grubby little oil worker in bum-fuck nowhere Penn pretending to speak for the entire scientific community, what did you think you were gonna get from him?

>> No.16302102

As can be evidenced by Climate Change and stem cell research, peer review is meaningless as far as the general public is concerned. And as a scientist, you depend on the support of the general public in order to continue getting your grant money; while this is often not a direct connection, federal grant money originates only from the politicians that support it, and corporate grant money originates only from corporations that believe it will work and that believe they can sell a product based on it.

Carl Sagan may or may not have been an amazingly brilliant scientist; what he was, however, was a man who was good at selling the concept of technological and scientific advancement in general. Something which few scientists are good at.

>> No.16302110


>Anecdotal evidence of the supernatural
>not occurring in nature
>The entire universe is nature
>Events that occur in the universe are natural.

Supernatural events are by definition nonexistant in science.

>> No.16302118

> you assume that one can't be agnostic and atheist or agnostic and theist at the same time, right?
Those terms are so muddled by their adherents that they can mean vastly different things depending on who says them. I am using the terminology based on the system we use in experimental methodology classes.
All three are based on divination. The divination being the generation of a data point regarding something that by its nature could never be observed or measured objectively. The three answers are: no supernatural forces(atheism), supernatural exists(theism), uncertain or incomplete divination(agnostism).

Now other people use agnostism to define a lack of surety in a divination because it cannot be determined that the divination is correct. However this is already an implicate part of the nature of divinations regarding the supernatural. So that term used in that way is just uneeded and ancillary.

>Science is at it's core an agnostic atheistic system because it assumes the non existence of god until evidence is provided to show the existence of the entity.
No science is neither athesistic, agnostic, or thesitic. Since the supernatural could never be observed in the first place we don't care. And since divinations are subjective, the divinations themselves have no value as objective data. And even if the supernatural exists it would by the natural of physical causality appear as though any action it took would appear to be attributable to natural phenomena. And you couldn't reproduce supernatural phenomena or make a predictive model about them anyway.

Since doesn't have an opinion about the supernatural, it just don't give a fuck.

>> No.16302126

While the Space Race was exacerbated by the Cold War, to say that Wonder has no place is... well, a bit silly. Granted, Wonder has less place than other things (money and politics probably being most profound) but Science alone will do nothing. For information and facts to have relevance, they have to have impact upon the lives they're affecting. If cancer research wasn't saving lives, it would be pointless. And no one would support it. Information for the sake of information exists, but it's not where the money or support goes. People use Science as a means to an end, and it's what drives the scientific fields further and further. Learning more about our world to learn more about ourselves and in turn improve the way we live. There's personal gain involved.

But to say Wonder doesn't have a part? Man, look at the sixties. Star Trek. All the pulp sci-fi out there. Wonder makes the average man interested, and his interest can cause others to look and become interested as well. No scientist has turned down funding yet, as far as I know.

Was this necessary to point out? We're discussing the guy's insistence upon complete objectivity when conducting science, peer review was sorta given in the fact that all data must be published before it essentially exists. And peers can be more or less biased, so even the most perfect divorcing of emotion could mean nothing.

>> No.16302127

Anecdotal evidence is as unreliable as its provider. If there's evidence for the supernatural, let's see some goddam testing. Or at least hypothesizing.

Supernatural is generally used to indicate "beyond the laws of nature." Given that science is the study of the laws of nature by their effect on our surroundings, supernatural tends to imply "beyond science," and therefore there is no scientific evidence of the supernatural.

>> No.16302131

I sometimes fear in a dark little corner of my mind that free and open scientific research may end up going the way of the cloistered orders in Europe - they spent so much time focusing on the purity of their endeavour at the expense of engagement with the rest of society that eventually they were stripped of their lands and disbanded.

People will forgive engineers a lot, because they *make* tangible stuff. Basic research is a much harder sell, even if the engineers' work is utterly reliant on it.

>> No.16302134

Au contraire, good sir. Science does have an opinion. No evidence? Then for all intents and purposes: DOES NOT EXIST.

>> No.16302144

Once again, this is why Carl Sagan was a good guy to have around.

It may be my inherent biases, but it seems to me that the number of people who don't understand science and basic scientific concepts is increasing (at least in the media), and it again seems like there are very few scientific groups attempting to encourage understanding.

>> No.16302149

>To try to divorce yourself from it is crippling yourself for no apparent reason.

I see it merely as cutting out weakness.

Strip away the weak and hated flesh, to be replaced with the blessed purity of metal.

>> No.16302152

This weakness is unfortunately the only thing funding your research.

>> No.16302157


Dude, do you even know what agnostic means?

It means 'a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.'

you just said science is agnostic.

And since science does not contain beliefs, it is by definition atheistic as well.

You just supported everything I said.

>> No.16302158

As the man behind >>16301864 , you will not see me disagree with this assertion.

>> No.16302159

That's right, and quarks didn't exist until someone discovered them. Nor did chemosynthetic prokaryotes, or microorganisms in general. That's right, nothing exists until someone notices evidence of it. Yup, real scientific.

>> No.16302161

May God strike blind the first of you infidels to sully him with this insipid argument. Science isn't a god, it doesn't count as a false idol. Leave it alone and let people sacrifice sheep to it if they want.

>> No.16302165

FATE system version (written up using Spirit of the Century assuming he started as Great but eventually escalated to Legendary over time, but Starblazer Adventures and Legends of Anglerre should be compatible with negligible adjustment)

Carl Sagan, Man of Science

+8 Science
+7 Academics, Rapport
+6 Contacting, Leadership, Empathy
+5 Resources, Engineering, Resolve, Art

Beloved Educator
Famous Scientist
Looking Forward to the Glorious Dawn
Always Leaves a Lasting Impression
Disarming Smile
Infectious Sense of Wonderment
"Destiny" is a Loaded Word, But...
Humanity is AWESOME
A Mind Lost to Inanity is a Tragedy
Billions and Billions

*Scientific Genius (Astronomy, Astrophysics)
*Engaging Intellect (As Dizzying Intellect, except it allows Science to be used in the place of Rapport instead of allowing Academics to be used in the place of Deceit) [Homebrewed stunt, Linked to Science]
*Gravitas (as Razor Tongue except it gives +1 to Rapport instead of to Intimidate)
*Do You Know Who I Am?
*Theory In Practice

Between those skills, stunts, and a tagged aspect, this version of Carl could handily broker peace in the Middle East, and he'd do it by talking about HOW COMPLETELY AWESOME it is that we're all made of the cooled remains of stars (plus trace quantities of hydrogen, helium, and a couple other elements formed by the Big Bang itself).

>> No.16302169


>> No.16302177

Yes, that's exactly right. Tell me, how particle physics factored quarks into their hypotheses before they were discovered?

>> No.16302178

In order to stat Carl Sagan, we must first stat the universe. I ain't got time for that shit.

>> No.16302183


>> No.16302184


>actual existence
>assumed existence

And guess what, we don't have evidence for unicorns, but by your assumption we must assume they exist because someone thought of them with no evidence.

It's called occam's razor, you dipshit.

>> No.16302186

Colossal Magical Beast Hit Dice: 48d10+594 (858 hp) Initiative: +7 Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares) Armor Class: 35 (–8 size, +3 Dex, +30 natural), touch 5, flat-footed 32 Base Attack/Grapple: +48/+81 Attack: Bite +57 melee (4d8+17/18–20/x3) Full Attack: Bite +57 melee (4d8+17/18–20/x3) and 2 horns +52 melee (1d10+8) and 2 claws +52 melee (1d12+8) and tail slap +52 melee (3d8+8) Space/Reach: 30 ft./20 ft. Special Attacks: Augmented critical, frightful presence, improved grab, rush, swallow whole Special Qualities: Carapace, damage reduction 15/epic, immunity to fire, poison, disease, energy drain, and ability damage, regeneration 40, scent, spell resistance 32 Saves: Fort +38, Ref +29, Will +20 Abilities: Str 45, Dex 16, Con 35, Int 3, Wis 14, Cha 14 Skills: Listen +17, Search +9, Spot +17, Survival +14 (+16 following tracks) Feats: Alertness, Awesome Blow, Blind-Fight, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Great Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Power Attack, Toughness (6) Environment: Any Organization: Solitary Challenge Rating: 20 Treasure: None Alignment: Always neutral Advancement: 49+ HD (Colossal) Level Adjustment: —


>> No.16302205

You faggots keep arguing about science, so let me quote something.

>As Carl Sagan explains:
"Appeal to ignorance – the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist – and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."-The Demon-Haunted World: (Chapter 12 – The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.) ”

For instance, absence of evidence that it rained (i.e. water is the evidence) may be considered as positive evidence that it did not rain. Again, in science, such inferences are always made to some limited (sometimes extremely high) degree of probability.

Arguments from ignorance can easily find their way into debates over the Existence of God. It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based precisely on ignorance, since this does not satisfactorily address issues of philosophic burden of proof. In other words, agnosticism is an appropriate response to lack of evidence either way.

>agnosticism is an appropriate response to lack of evidence either way.
>agnosticism is an appropriate response to lack of evidence either way.
>agnosticism is an appropriate response to lack of evidence either way.
>agnosticism is an appropriate response to lack of evidence either way.
>agnosticism is an appropriate response to lack of evidence either way.

>> No.16302206


>> No.16302212

>Au contraire, good sir. Science does have an opinion. No evidence? Then for all intents and purposes: DOES NOT EXIST.

Technically it you are taking about natural phenomena, no evidence means we don't have anything to base a hypothesis on. So we don't bother. Doesn't mean that phenomena doesn't exist, we just don't have any data and as such don't give a fuck.

Supposed supernatural phenomena would never produce observable data if they were actually supernatural. So we never give a fuck. If by not existing you mean we never bother to take them into account then yes absolutely. If you think we actually say they don't exist then really, just take methodology course and get the point drilled into your head.

We make no statements regarding phenomena, natural or supernatural, until we have data. Statements without data are suppositions, not hypotheses to be tested. That is the realm of philosophy. Keep it out of your data collection procedures.

Who had to take 12 credits of Methods 550-650? I'm pretty sure it was me.

>> No.16302213

Are you saying...the universe is a tarrasque?

>> No.16302214

They didn't accurately. And many people were ridiculed for thinking something on that scale could exist due to the effects they were finding in their testing.

>> No.16302220

Whether or not something is accepted as evidence depends on how well-accepted the theories are that it supports, among other things. Nothing is intrinsically evident or not.

>> No.16302223

>>16302165 here
What the FUCK happened to this thread while I was writing that up‽

>> No.16302224

Holy shit, re-check your shit dude. For reference, a Seraphim angel has 177d100+6195 (47,790 hp). Planet Earth has roughly 122,880 hp.

>> No.16302226

I'm not saying we should assume anything. Quite the opposite, I'm saying that we should not assume. We should neither assume that it exists nor that it doesn't exist.

Also, we shouldn't try playing silly semantic games whereby we try to define it so that it can't exist by definition.

>> No.16302227

The basis of true scientific thought is to address any situation with an open mind to possibilities.

Scientific thought is not assuming something doesn't exist until given proof, but granting the possibility to anything (within the bounds of proven laws and tested theories) until it has been DISPROVEN. Approaching something with a closed mind means you're going into something with a set number of assumptions of the outcome, which will influence the data and outcome.

That's all I'm saying. Enjoy your debate.

>> No.16302228

Agnosticism is the act of not deciding. "There is no evidence that can be gained at this time, so I will not decide one way or another."

The problem are there are a lot of Atheist fags who say "There is no evidence that can be gained at this time, which concludes there is nothing."

>> No.16302229


We're not claiming that lack of evidence means evidence of absence, I'm referring to occam's razor.

In science, absence of evidence is assumed to be evidence of absence, as to not act as such means that any added complexity to an argument can not be invalidated by lack of evidence.

>> No.16302234

>In science, absence of evidence is assumed to be evidence of absence, as to not act as such means that any added complexity to an argument can not be invalidated by lack of evidence.

[citation needed]

>> No.16302237

Poster of this. I seem to have been unclear. I did not mean that unless there is evidence that something exists it DOES NOT EXIST. I meant that unless one can provide evidence for the existence of something, then science will disregard it AS THOUGH it did not exist, until it can be proven.

>> No.16302244

Yes. Colossal, terrifying, and easily destroyed by a single wizard (fucking wizards).

On a cosmic scale, all celestial bodies can be represented by D&D monsters. For example, in the past, people have compared this world we live on to Nosferatu and other, similar bloodsucking creatures of the night.

>> No.16302248

occam's razor.

>> No.16302249


Actually, one more thing:

As far as Sagan and his work, he espoused approaching the sciences with a sense of wonder. Anyone who says that such a viewpoint is somehow harmful is trolling, stupid, or has a grudge against the guy. He was a great science popularizer, and authored an incredible amount of papers. To deride him and his methods is, quite simply an insult to the memory of a man who has done far more to bring science to the masses than anyone in the last sixty years.

>> No.16302251

I'll admit, I may have been off by a decimal or two.

>> No.16302257

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. The World is a Vampire.

>> No.16302261

Occam's razor is a rule of thumb. It's not even a very good one. Reality doesn't care how complicated you think it looks when deciding what it's going to be.

Any decent scientist will treat absence of evidence as evidence of nothing in particular.

>> No.16302262


>> No.16302263

>Implying Feynman wasn't cooler

>> No.16302272

this is the best post in this thread.

And that's TERRIBLE.

>> No.16302274

Whoa now, children. Can't we all just smoke a bowl and admire the beauty of the universe?

>> No.16302276

The problem is, there are so many hypotheses that can't be falsified. For example, gods can't even be conclusively defined, let alone measured.
I consider agnosticism to be a flavor of atheism. Few atheists bother to say "There is no god!" Most just don't see a point in choosing any of the equally likely gods out there. Atheism says "There probably isn't a god."

>> No.16302282

>In other words, agnosticism is an appropriate response to lack of evidence either way.

And this is Sagans problem. Agnostism is not the proper response in science.

The proper response is to sit there and mechanically drone "no data available, stop being a philosophical shithead" when anyone asks you about the supernatural from the perspective of a scientist.

Actually we moved away from occam's razor(When faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions) in our methodology.

These days we don't select any. If the differing hypotheses can't be falsified even if they are exclusive then we don't make any selection. We shelve them all until we get more data and revise the hypotheses.

It ain't Sagan's science anymore. We are now more objective, more brutal, and more effective. If the data sucks, as it must in that case where you apply occam's razor we no longer make any statement about the likely hood of any the hypotheses.

Though fewer assumptions usually make it easier to falsify or revise the hypothesis in question. So we state from that one for expediency's sake. But make no assumption that it is more likely than any other hypothesis.

Be cold, be precise, make no assumptions. You'll still fuck up now and again, but fuck ups will me minimized.

>> No.16302286


Man, you are retarded as fuck. Occam's razor is an excellent rule of thumb by virtue of the fact that it is based around the necessity of evidence. If we didn't use occam's razor, then When I say 'charge is formed by nanoscopic pixies living in atoms', it can be held just as valid as 'charge is formed by the spin of the particle'.

That is the utility of occam's razor.

>> No.16302287


That can't be falsified yet.

If there's one thing that studying the history of science will teach you, it's that understanding changes over the centuries. Who's to say what we'll have learned in the next few hundred years?

>> No.16302292

Yes yes, and all humans will be subservient, yadda, yadda, yadda. When do you send back Arnold Schwarzenegger?

>> No.16302295

That's a problem? God is simply outside the realm of science. Science has nothing to say about Him.
Agnosticism isn't a flavor of atheism. Atheism does indeed say "there is no God" or at least "I won't worship any God that might exist". Agnosticism says "I don't know about any God that might exist right now". It is a statement about the agnostic person, not about God.

>> No.16302300


One of the best trolls I've ever seen, considering that he's the only person I've ever met who's ever said this.

The entire field of theoretical physics says hello, mister troll.

>> No.16302304

Holy shit, it's an even nerdier version of the internet tough guy!

>> No.16302306

Feynman and Sagan were cut from the same cloth - both are more noteworthy for their contributions to science education than their own scientific work. Feynman changed how science is taught, but Sagan made people want to learn about science. In that regard, Sagan is the clear winner.

That said... Feynman dated strippers, got into barfights, played bongos in the woods, studied ant path-making behavior in an apartment he had, repaired vacuum tube radios as a kid, got into lockpicking and safecracking for fun, played salsa in a band in Rio, and had an art exhibition of his drawings. He comes ahead on this axis of comparison by a fairly wide margin.

On balance, I'd say they're equals.

>> No.16302308

Its the same thing with most Theistfags out there. The loud ones who are hardline on their views and like to antagonize those who do not share them are everywhere and very loud. Making the more moderate people who have similar yet not as extreme views look bad.

For as long as the Atheistfags treat all Theists like the Theistfags, Atheists are going to be treated the same way.

>> No.16302311

He may not be a troll, he could simply be someone not interested in a science which features any risk or a sense of "adventure".

>> No.16302313

They're still nothing compared to this wonderful oil well shitkicker that's decided to enlighten us about what REAL TRU science is.

>> No.16302318

You are needlessly abrasive and not as smart or learned as you appear to believe yourself to be. I am through arguing with you.

>> No.16302322


Or even more likely he is a buttfrustrated engineer because no other man wants to do it with him.

>> No.16302328

A bit harsh man. I don't agree with him, but I guess I kinda empathize. He's acting like a prick, to be certain, but in his position I'd take his stance on the sciences I use in my daily life. He's dealing with stuff making him money and he needs an answer at the end of the day. Wonder and philosophy have no place in his day to day life. But to apply his world experiences to the entire world is a bit naive, I feel.

>> No.16302334

I give no credibility to any claims of god because we can track back their origins to people making ship up around a fire before they invented science.

There is a reason religions borrow so much from each other.

Even if I have to accept it as technically possible I still consider myself justified in arguing against people who assert it as true.

>> No.16302335

>Anyone who says that such a viewpoint is somehow harmful is trolling, stupid, or has a grudge against the guy. He was a great science popularizer, and authored an incredible amount of papers. To deride him and his methods is, quite simply an insult to the memory of a man who has done far more to bring science to the masses than anyone in the last sixty years.

The thing is alot of scientists don't like the way he does it. Most of us just find our studies interesting a detached and sometimes obsessive way. Being wonder struck is not the way most of us want to be portrayed.

Our job is "Yeah, I just used 3d seismic to map out a section of 380 million year old Utica shale. I think we can expect x MCF per day from a horizontal well with a bore of...ect ect."

Not "Isn't it amazing that that gas came from Cambrian shales then migrated into Ordovician rock when the region was compression the the Permian by...ect ect."

Familiarity breeds contempt. Once we get out to the stars everything from exploiting new planets, to firing your reaction engine at age old enemies of your faction of humanity, tomanufacturing thousands of offspring will become SSDD.

>> No.16302336


>You are needlessly abrasive and not as smart or learned as you appear to believe yourself to be. I am through arguing with you.
>LOL you're dumb and I'm smarter than you.

Nice ad hominem. Now let me retort with an ad hominem of my own. You're pants on head retarded. In fact, you're so retarded that I've had to repeat the same point at least 4 times, and it gets very aggravating. I don't give a shit about my tone right now, because there are no people I need to be 'fake' for.

Just keep your diction high, I'm sure someone will fall for your vapid arguments someday.

>> No.16302353


Well, then maybe you shouldn't be in the field of science. Save science for those who actually find things like telomerase extension and the deactivation of the TSG causing cancer to be extremely interesting.

If you're just in it for the money then you're bound to fall into the trappings of boredom.

>> No.16302355

>I still consider myself justified in arguing against people who assert it as true.

If they assert it is provable then they are doing theism wrong and don't understand how supernaturalism is supposed to work, at least according the the majority of divinations made about it.

>> No.16302359

Oh god. This reminds me of my fundie sister who's getting her phD in biology specifically so she can be a tame scientist who shoots down evolutionary theories in school. "See a SCIENTIST agrees with us."

>> No.16302364

Yes, but if you look at the history of science, you'll see that God only takes up the gap in afoit's knowledge.
Religion was in the place of astronomy, biology, meteorology, and every other branch of science before they existed. Then we started to observe more closely and understand the bartel proceses happening around us. Epilepsy was no longer a spiritual possession. Lightning was no longer God's wrath. The Sun was no longer a heavenly sphere. And so on. The more science covers, the less ground religion has.
That's a bit like saying that science has nothing to say about whether flams corbate or whether Russell's Teapot loves us. It ignores nonsense.
Science and faith oppose each other. Science says "I have evidence, so I understand." Faith says "I have no evidence, so I believe." Science destroys faith by observing.

Atheism doesn't make a positive statement. It doesn't need to. For example, I'm,going to make up somethibg to,believe in: traffles. Are you an atrafflist? Because atrafflism is juat a lack of trafflism. Do you deny trafflism? Or do you just lack a belief in traffles?

>> No.16302382

Do the world a favor and kill your sister.

Right or wrong, you're still threadcrapping. If you don't like the idea of inspiring people to study science, or the idea of sharing a deeper understanding of the natural world with the masses, or even if you just don't like his haircut, then don't fucking post in a Carl Sagan thread. Popping up in a Carl Sagan thread saying "scientists hate Sagan" is like showing up in a 3.5 thread with some comment about 4e, or posting 40k memes in a Magic thread, or being That Guy who rolls up a lesbian stripper ninja for any given tabletop RPG and forces other players to sit through sex scenes. It's just a dickish thing to do.

>> No.16302388

Str - 10
Dex - 12
Con - 10
Int - 18
Wis - 22
Cha - 18

>> No.16302390

I do geology because I am good at it and I find it interesting. And I don't make that much money, 80 a year. I work for a moderate sized company. The money is not important.

Nor am I anything special. I am moderately competent in a environment in a field filled with moderate competency.

>The entire field of theoretical physics says hello, mister troll.
I think you may be short selling their field a little. Often times there work does have data to back it up and eventually does make a predictive model. But then there is all the shit that is not predictive and built on shoddy internal logic rather than observation. Like say String Theory for the most part.

>> No.16302393

Whoah, he's using a degree to make money and I can't fault him that. I'm going to eventually go into nursing, not because I'm mother Theresa but because I want the money and the fact the industry is vast, versatile, and will never go away. I do enjoy offering care and help but I'm hardly humanitarian. His problem isn't what he's using his science for, but how he's taking his application of science and using it to make a broad statement for all science. Science is an unspeakably vast array of subjects and topics, to say that one mindset should be used for approaching all of them is silly.

And Science could use another Carl Sagan I figure. Learning how the world operates and how we can change and improve society and help ourselves through science needs to be conveyed by someone charismatic and able to work with people. And if evidence gathered in this thread can be used to draw a conclusion, it seems like most scientists post-Sagan era are acting like assholes.

>> No.16302395


I had a class in which the teach had a fundie that said the exact same thing.

He basically said he'd get a PhD in evolutionary Biology and write a boot about how it doesn't happen.

He ended up getting a 'c' in that class, and the teacher told him: 'I'll be waiting for your book to come out, because I'll be the first to review it, and the first line of that review will say: 'the writer has no clue what they are talking about when discussing evolution. Take it from me, he couldn't understand the basics of evolution, and therefore has no authority in critiquing it.'

>> No.16302401


The issue I have with a person being disinterested in their work is that it can cause them to become sloppy. And when you're a sloppy engineer or nurse, people are going to die.

Nurses are actually there to double check the physician's work in addition to providing care for that specific reason.

>> No.16302413

>Yes, but if you look at the history of science, you'll see that God only takes up the gap in afoit's knowledge.
Religion was in the place of astronomy, biology, meteorology, and every other branch of science before they existed. Then we started to observe more closely and understand the bartel proceses happening around us. Epilepsy was no longer a spiritual possession. Lightning was no longer God's wrath. The Sun was no longer a heavenly sphere. And so on. The more science covers, the less ground religion has.

>if you look at the history of science


Gods as defined by religious scientists and religion is general have been mostly seen as vast forces standing outside physical causality. Perhaps altering it in undectable ways but inviolate to all natural phenomena. The "god of the gaps" thing was never really big besides with a few shitheads that demanded that supernaturalism have a tangible effect on causality.

Religion mostly been about shit outside the world, rather than describing the actions phenomena within the world. Excluding early animism of course.

For example not every lighting bolt was explained as being thrown by Jupiter, it was just his chosen medium along with birds.

>> No.16302420

>religious scientists

>> No.16302423

> Learning how the world operates and how we can change and improve society and help ourselves through science needs to be conveyed by someone charismatic and able to work with people. And if evidence gathered in this thread can be used to draw a conclusion, it seems like most scientists post-Sagan era are acting like assholes.
You there. Keep being awesome.

>> No.16302432

She graduated valedictorian as an undergrad (from a real school). From what I can tell, she's doing extremely well.

She's not stupid. She understands what she's doing. She just plans on using her knowledge and her skills at it, to thwart what shes spending her entire young adult life doing. She's a goddamn dedicated agent for the fucking evangelist/dominionist/We have to save Israel so it can be blown up to summon JEE-ZUS! apocalypse types.

Yeah, she's an anti-intellectual intellectual. It makes no sense to me either.

>> No.16302441

And then the teacher responds: 'so you have one scientist saying this. Would you care to show us the evidence she has produced to substantiate her claim?'

>> No.16302443

Guy wants to keep all supernaturalism(and atheism), emotions, empathy, opinions, and philosophy out of science because he thinks they get in the way of objectivity.

He's an asshole, but isn't this guy the opposite of a fundie? Since he seems to think even his own opinions are worthless shit in the eyes of his precious objectivity.

<Basicaly this

>> No.16302451

So if we can't observe it or measure the supernatural because it exits outaide of the observable and measurable, why even bother thinking it's there?

>> No.16302464

That won't mean shit when they put her book on the best seller list by buying them en masse using church funds and the talking radio heads and right wingers screech praises about her non-stop.

It's terrifying, and I try to call her out and explain what she's doing is bullshit, but I can't do anything because uh...I'm kinda retarded, I'm not articulate, and my education is a goddamn bachelors of arts.

"This is HORSESHIT." "What do you know? SHE has the degree!"

>> No.16302470


i dunno, he's certainly not a fundie in terms of being a literalist christian, but he's pretty into the fundamentals of the scientific method, the first and foremost being the quest for objectivity

>> No.16302473

Yes, but her degree is made of DICKS! Duh!

>> No.16302478

Therefore, you must silence her the only way you are able. For science.

>> No.16302486

Pretty simple dude. If she's expressed her intentions to you openly, just get a tape recorder and open the conversation. Record it. Use it as incontrovertible evidence.

Sometimes even Science gives way before good old fashioned underhanded techniques.

Bear in mind, this tape isn't for now. You wait for her book to be on the upcoming publishing list then send it to some asshole like Bill Maher who'll make sure it gets spread all over. When a book written by this "expert" is expected and then her plan is laid bare by her own voice, it might take some of the wind out of the sails.

>> No.16302494

Okay, the participants of this "science versus religion" sub-discussion need to be aware that the birth of morden science (roughly Descartes et al., i.e. early Enlightenment) mainly featured two different kinds of religious scientists. Those who still gave their allegiance to the established churches whereever they worked, which had political implications concerning monarchies etc., and those who adopted a pantheist view of spirituality.


Examples like Epilepsie and Lighning are really shallow phenomena to point out religions shortcomings. The thing is that religion covers certain areas, both descriptive facets of unobservable aspects of the world and prescriptive statements on human behavior, that fundamentally lie outside the scope of science. That means that a certain core spirituality will always be compatible with a scientific worldview. The only area where the two clash is between their worst followers, Xtians who believe the world was created 7000 years ago (~ inbred retards) and people who believe in science the same way people used to believe in religion (if you think about it, the parallels are stronger than generally acknowledged: the broad masses simply put their faith in the assumption that a very small minority of talented people have an insight into something they don't and thus trust their judgements about how the world works).

>> No.16302523

>hurrdurrdurrr science totally has its roots in philosophy which spawned religious theory and dogma u gaiz so you can't have science without religion. CHECKMATE ATHEISTS. LOLOLOL. DENY RELIGION DENY SCIENCE ROFLMAO

>> No.16302525

Science is for fags.

>> No.16302526

Am I the only one bothered by how people like to use the word science like you would use magic?

>Let's do science to this.
>In the name of science.
>I am one with science.

Only partially related to this topic, but I just gotta make sure I'm not the only one.

>> No.16302528

She hasn't. I only found out about this by overhearing her creepy little Christo-fascist buddies babbling excitedly about it. Like I said, I'm not very smart, and have no idea how to do detective work needed to prove positive=upper echelons of X organization and her cooperating for longterm goal of harmful bullshit.

Plus the annoyance of having my entire family disown me for shooting down the most highly educated (and likely, highest paid) person the family has ever had.

>> No.16302529

As much as I can appreciate Sagan's good intentions in trying to popularize science amongst the masses, I personally would have preferred if he devoted his life to something else. There is nothing more obnoxious on the internet than the retarded teenagers constantly bitching about shit and considering themselves intellectals and evolutionsts because they possess the high school level knowledge of science.

That being said, this thread had absolutely nothing to do with /tg/. Please continue this discussion in /sci/, that's the reason we have that board in the first place.

>> No.16302530

in truth, we all want to be sciencewizards

>> No.16302532

Don't worry, you just tell as many scientists as possible about the book, then they'll rip it apart for you.

>> No.16302533


Fuck your family, it's for the good of everyone, everywhere.

You are the hero Gotham deserves.

>> No.16302535

Having power over people without having social skills and/or money is a popular fatguy dream, yes.

>> No.16302544

I direct you to the first post.

Also, 1/10

>> No.16302547


I honestly don't think too much impact will come from whatever she does with her stupid book.

For all of her rabid Christian fucktard friends that push the thing, there'll be legions of professors and practicing scientists that'll realize exactly what the fuck the book is and drag it through the mud, and her along with it.

The more popular it gets, the more it'll be torn apart, because I know she'll have very few colleagues in the scientific community that'll support her.

>> No.16302548

Okay, apart from the fact that you are obviously an asshole: I did not argue for religion, or against atheism. I did not say that science without religion is not possible. I said that science + spirituality is possible (and if you knew anything about scientists, you would be aware that this is actually a common combination). I also pointed out that science (not in its orthodoxy, but in the watered down version that arrives in most people's heads) works a lot like religion, because even though the underlying principles of creating knowledge are fundamentally different, these inner processes are black-boxed for 90% of the "believers" anyway. The vast majority of people who think Stephen Hawkings knows what he is talking about have no more a shot at 'understanding' string theory in any meaningful way than most people who support the pope live their lives with a felt certainty of the existence and presence of God.

>> No.16302559

Considering science as some kind of an ideology, "Science", is one of the most infuriating things for me on the internet discussions over this and similar topics. Well, that, and trying to argue science vs. philosophy.

It just goes to show that you can't go against human nature. Even if we theoretically do get rid of theism one day, people will still act like religious fundamentalists. Guess it's just our monkey brains.

>> No.16302570


Respect for authority and false agency do not help when you want to be scientific.

>> No.16302572

Noted. I'm more worried about her success as part of the right wing noise machine, which is obviously the career she's going for...christ, she's going to end up as one of those talking rodents on Fox...

Fuck my family, fuck this town. Thanks for the ideas and support guys. Gotta crash. Gotta be up in 3 hours to move boxes around a warehouse.

>> No.16302576

People who claim that "science is like a religion" don't understand science.
Religion is anti-intellectual. It requires the suspension of logic. If I tell you that frozen yogurt can make me invisible, would you believe me? Would you take my word for it that the yogurt has such power if I told you that invisibility yogurt exists outside of the scope of rational thought?

>> No.16302583

If people had been saying yogurt had made you invisible for 1000s of years, and you had an awesome hat, yeah I might believe you.

Don't forget the power of tradition, social consensus, and the ability to make people feel good. Grade A bullshit may still be bullshit, but people will swallow it a lot more excitedly.

>> No.16302611

With science, if you look at where the ideas come from, you get equations and experiments that, with the right resources and knowledge, you can verify yourself.
When you look at the core of religion, you have old stories that people keep because they're comforting.

>> No.16302626

See my second post. Most people who accept the explanations science offers about the world have no way of personally verifying the scientific justifications for these explanations and simply believe that the scientists know what they are doing. Despite not being able to personally verify every part of it, people put their faith into the system because they assume those higher up are closer to the truth. This is exactly how religions work: The majority on the bottom has little to know spiritual revelations in their lives but assumes that those on top have a direct experience of God or your frozen-invisibility-yoghurt. I am well aware that the principles which the people at the top of the knowledge-foodchain use are very different in science and religion, but sociologically they are very much alike.

Also, religions per se do NOT require the suspension of logic. That is only required if the people who believe in the religion at the same time believe in a world which contradicts their religion. Aspects like "the Earth is 7000 years old" are of the latter kind, but aspects like "I believe in the existence of a supernatural being who created everything" are fundamentally beyond the scope of science and are thus not even capable of entering into logical contradictions with scientific knowledge.

>> No.16302627


I think this is less of a matter of 'science is another religion' and more of 'uneducated people treat science like religion.'

>> No.16302630

ITT people don't realize all that matters is what the people believe.

if everyone believes there's a god? there's a god. doesn't matter if he exists or not.

>> No.16302641

where do I fall if I don't care about science other than ensuring scientists are well fed and payed for so they excrete discoveries for me?

>> No.16302650


Argumentum ad Populum.

Majority doesn't determine what is true, the majority just creates the base assumption for a claim that has not been scrutinized.

>> No.16302654

only problem is, most people don't give a shit about your logical fallacies. therefore, they don't matter and might as well not exist. in fact, they don't exist to most people.

>> No.16302656


So long as you don't treat everything that scientists say as undeniably true, then you have no issue.

>> No.16302671

Not at all true. If people stopped believing in gravity, they'll still fall to their deaths if they jump off a tall building, and there'd still be a functional limit to the height of a structure made of a given material due to the weight of that material. If people stopped believing in electricity, they'll still get electrocuted if they're struck by lighting, and electronics will still work as long as they have power.

In other words, science works whether you believe in it or not. Religion doesn't do anything observable regardless of whether or not you believe in it.

>> No.16302673

I treat what scientists say as undeniably true to the everyman.

that is, if I have to choose between what some dude is telling me is true, or what a scientist is telling me is true, I most likely will think that dude is full of shit.

And yes, "some dude" includes clergymen, because the church aint excreted any discoveries for me lately. Where's my miracle-based super regeneration? huh?

>> No.16302680

Yes, science cannot disprove nonsense. Science can't say that Garruk Wildspeaker was not a real person who summoned real baloths and didn't want homosexuals in the military. Does that mean that the idea isn't devoid of value?

>> No.16302683

I dunno, those witches burn regardless of the fact they don't actually have magic(k) powers.

>> No.16302686

If everyone didn't believe in gravity and a few died of falling, they would now have a new mysterious spontaneous explosion disease that the scientists are baffled on.

>> No.16302691

Only in theory. The problem is that most people will treat the current state of science (i.e. in the form which has arrived down at mainstream culture) as objective fact, which is simply wrong, from the point of view of science. Science consists entirely of theories that may be supported by huge amounts of evidence, but can never actually be proven as objectively true (don't debate me on this, you know I am right).

If you went through all the theories and experiments yourself, the best you could arrive at would be a strong convictions that the current state of science is the best explanation of those events concerned that you and everyone else can come up with at the present moment. This however is not how the vast majority of people treat science, as evidenced by the use of "objective" and "fact", two of the terms most strongly based in faith used around science:

"objective" is a claim of universality for a conviction that is at best inter-subjective with a near exhaustive spread considering a finite population during a certain time. The step from "most intelligent people alive today believe in this" to "it is objectively true" is nothing else than a leap of faith.

"fact" is equally used to denote that something is intriniscally true, disregarding personal perspectives, socio-cultural or historical context, etc. However, if you look at the history of scientific development you will note that things considered to be "fact" do not stay that way simply because their descriptions are codified in explanatory systems which are incompatible with the new theories that supercede them.

>> No.16302699


So, the majority holds an incorrect assumption. Until that majority can start changing reality, then their assumptions mean shit.

Argument from majority is a load of crap because tangible evidence supersedes biased testimony every time.

>> No.16302701

That seems to be evidence that fire is hot and everyone labelled a witch that has been burned at the stake does not actually have magic powers, or they would surely have saved themselves.

>> No.16302709

>tangible evidence supercedes biased testimony every time

there is no such thing as a witch.

However, tangible evidence did not stop biased testimony.

>> No.16302716


well, you don't hold them to be undeniably true, you just hold them to have greater authority.

So long as you don't take everything they say to be true without reasonable doubt, you'll be fine.

>> No.16302721

The problem with science is the same as the problem with democracy - very few people actually care enough to find out what the actual truth is, and most will just believe what they saw on tv. Frankly, I'd rather those type of people would stay the fuck away from both.

>> No.16302724

well, I ALSO hold the possibility that the scientists are bilking me in mind constantly.

Are they using this money to discover things? Or are neutrinos and portulons just things they made up for more grant funds?

And WHERE is that flying car I've been paying for?

>> No.16302726

That's more of a philosophical and psychological issue than a problem with science. Yes, reality by its nature is subjective, because objective reality is impossible to observe. Yes, operational language must be used to distinguish the validity of a perspective based on its adherence to observation. No, this doesn't mean that Steven Hawking is the pope.

>> No.16302728


So people believing in witches didn't stop people from burning them because they were believed to be witches?

Unless those people suddenly have objectively observable magical powers they were not witches, and were only assumed to be witches.

>> No.16302737

what I am saying is that it doesn't matter one bit what fact is.

What people THINK is fact is far more important.

>> No.16302754

I am posting on a pocket-sized computer that can be used to search the majority of human knowledge for any question I have. I don't give much of a fuck whether the flying car (which exists, by the way) is viable for mass production yet.

>> No.16302758

No, but you are turning things on their head now: Religion does not claim to be valid because science cannot disprove it.

>> No.16302763

I didn't ask for the "majority of human knowledge"

I asked for a FLYING CAR. maybe a jetpack.

in fact, scratch the flying car. where's my jetpack?

>> No.16302767


What people think is real only affects human behavior. In science popular opinion means jack shit. The same goes for engineering and any field based off of the knowledge gleaned from science.

>> No.16302772

>ITT Painful Elegy and a few other anons show us what's wrong with pretentious fucks who claim to be rational but don't have any idea of what they are talking about.


>> No.16302781

Use that vast database and Google it.
You can have them if you're rich enough.

>> No.16302783

The claim that the majority of human knowledge is accessible online is not verifiable, as knowledge is not quantifiable in any case. And the way you can search it is incredibly limited, especially if you consider any possible question. Think about the difference between googling a question about something very specific in an exotic academic field and asking an expert personally. The qualitiy of the answers is very much different.

>> No.16302797



Shut the fuck up.

This Geologist is schooling the little fundie asspie atheists.



>> No.16302804

>appeal to ridicule



>> No.16302815




>> No.16302833


>Hurr someone's taking a skeptical viewpoint in an argument.

Argumentum ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Hominem everywhere. Even in this post.

>> No.16302842

Unicorns and God are just equally viable and legitimate ideas.

>> No.16302856

Science will sooner prove God than you lose your virginity.

>> No.16302861

In the same manner as the theory of evolution and the hollow earth theory are, yes.

>> No.16302872

>yelling "Ad Hominem! Ad Hominem! ARGUNTUM AT POPULARUM!" as if you're a Harry Potter universe wizard dueling an enemy on the internet

>> No.16302873


>Theory of Evolution
>Hollow earth theory
>god theory
>unicorn theory

One of these things is not like the other, one of this things is using the scientific definition of theory and not the colloquial one, which actually means hypothesis.

>> No.16302883


Pointing out a logical fallacy is a valid counterpoint to an argument based solely on a logical fallacy.

>> No.16302884


posts like this always comfort my belief that /tg/ is the least insane board on 4chan
thanks, dude

>> No.16302896

Seriously, you're a sperglord.

>> No.16302915


It's not my fault that you're not providing a counterargument to anything with substance. I'll give a care about what you say once it consists of something more than insults.

>> No.16302922

you know, discarding a point because it has a fallacy is ALSO a fallacy. though, I can't remember the latin name.

>> No.16302931

Hey, you insulted me. Must mean I'm wrong. You make a convincing argument there.

>> No.16302932


that is true. But discarding a point because it contains no content other than a logical fallacy (IE >>16302896 ) is a completely valid course of action.

>> No.16302947

Where did these asspie namefags come from, anyways? Don't remember seeing them on /tg/ before. Did someone link this thread to /sci/, or heavens forbid, /b/?

>> No.16302953

You may not care, but I do. I honestly, truly care about them. I want them, and everyone else, to live long and fulfilling lives. The truth is a key component. Do I know the truth? Probably not, but rational discourse will get us all closer.

>> No.16303024

threads like this make me wish humanity was the orks

>> No.16303055

I honestly don't understand why people are complaining about the opinions expressed in this thread. I see the points made and I sympathize with them.

I honestly don't understand why people are having such strong reactions; everything posted seems reasonable to me.

>> No.16303084


It's because people assume when someone's supporting a spiritual stance, they must be evangelical, while anyone supporting a skeptic stance must be a militant atheist.

It's a case of false dichotomy.

>> No.16303103

Its because both sides' loudest proponents are the worst stereotypes of what the other sides dislike the most.

And until the last hour or so, you've come off as a terrible stereotype, which is why everyone reacted to you so badly.

>> No.16303121


Well, it's hard to not be a raging jerk when you probably should have gone to sleep at least 3 hours ago.

>> No.16303156

That's the thing. I didn't think anyone in the thread was being a stereotype, or being anything less than reasonable. I don't get the hate.

>> No.16303219

Everyone in this thread should go back to that den of bullshit, /r/atheism.

>> No.16304311

Sure is ARGUMENTUM AD DAWKINSUM in this thread.
I finished God Delusion like three weeks ago and it was a great book, but I'm quite disillusioned how people that I thought before were intelligent are just quoting entire passages from it instead of formulating their own opinions. And to think that one of the main ideas of the book was "think for yourself".

>> No.16306244


stereotypes exist. this guy is one of those "You all don't think for yourself, dawkinites!" crusaders.

>> No.16306299

>Carl Sagan thread

>Giant butthurt argument between college kids

>Religious debate, religious debate everywhere

>> No.16306367

-10 hp

>> No.16306407

Dawkins is shit-tier atheism. God Delusion is 10% actual reasons to be atheist, 45% atheist circlejerk, 45% hurr religions so dumb. He's popular because he has good rhetoric and he'll debate Christians.

Carl Sagan did in one sentence what Richard Dawkins couldn't do in a whole book: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In a single sentence, Sagan summed up skepticism, rational inquiry, and (by proxy) atheism.

>> No.16306533

Hats off to you, good sir!

>> No.16306584

Fuck your Sagan. Protagros said "As to the gods, I cannot know whether they exist or what form they have if they do". Thousands of fucking years ago. And that is all there is to say on the question in terms of knowledge. Everyone needs to have shut up about "proof" or "evidence" relating to god(s) a long fucking time ago.

>> No.16306690

what if I MADE a god? you know, a machine that can do or be anything?

does that count?

>> No.16306771

>implying "I don't know" = skepticism

Oh, hey, it's like I'm really on /sci/.

>> No.16306968

I never implied that, fucknuts.

>> No.16306979

I'd like some proof of that.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.