Religious affiliation of American scientists

[Freddy Figbottom]

fyfy....You can't draw a box around the methodology of the scientific method and holler that covers everything the profession of science is.

The professional practice of science includes speculation, assumption, conjecture, and philosophical inference.

those last few things are not science though.

the philosophical speculation of scientists is not "more scientific".

that's their off time hobby, just like it is for everyone else.

same thing for the cult of global warming.

that's a wacky cult a lot of scientists happen to be in, like catholicism.

 

[Cypress]

those last few things are not science though.

You can't draw a box around the rote procedures of the scientific method and say that is all that scientists do.

The profession of science is not an exclusive club for atheism.
That should be crystal clear from the data I posted and the posts I wrote.

Einstein, Newton, Bohr engaged in inference and speculation. Quantum mechanics and cosmology are famously scientific disciplines that involve a lot of inference, conjecture, and interpretation that are not testable.

String theory itself is not testable, and relies on inference.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

You can't draw a box around the rote procedures of the scientific method and say that is all that scientists do.

I can say that's all that should do in their professional capacity.

their mental masturbation is just as unsubstantiated as anyone else's.

The profession of science is not an exclusive club for atheism.

its a club for anyone willing to apply the scientific method to their ideas.

That should be crystal clear from the data I posted and the posts I wrote.

you're a fucking idiot.

Einstein, Newton, Bohr engaged in inference and speculation. Quantum mechanics and cosmology are famously scientific disciplines that involve a lot of inference, conjecture, and interpretation that are not testable.

String theory itself is not testable, and relies on inference.

yes. many things presented as "science" are not.

 

[domer76]

Right, but 99 percent of life is not repeatable and subject to laboratory experiments. All knowledge is not based on scientific experiments, I'd say the vast majority of it isn't.

Even the Big Bang is not reproducible and repeatable.

Empirical data and observation is only one type of knowledge.

Scientists and the profession of science has always included speculation, conjecture, inference. There is no law, rule, or regulation in science that prohibits scientists from making inferences from their discoveries. Nobody ever cried foul that Isaac Newton or Francis Collins believed the most logical inference for a lawful universe is the existence of a law-giver.

“ but 99 percent of life is not repeatable and subject to laboratory experiments.” I don’t even know what the fuck that means.

The Big Bang is only one of many theories. But you probably knew that.

Back to Newton and others being infallible. They weren’t, were they?

 

[Cypress]

I can say that's all that should do in their professional capacity.

their mental masturbation is just as unsubstantiated as anyone else's.



its a club for anyone willing to apply the scientific method to their ideas.


you're a fucking idiot.

yes. many things presented as "science" are not.

It gives me a lot of confidence in my ideas and claims that you oppose them.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

It gives me a lot of confidence in my ideas and claims that you oppose them.

yes.

this is why you lost.

you're a reactionary fool.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The scientific method is strictly empirical and inductive.

Science is a profession composed of people who use the scientific method but also have the free will hold philosophical beliefs and infer philosophical conclusions from the discoveries of science.

Are those “philosophical conclusions” repeatable and reproducible? If not, they aren’t scientifically valid.

This is why I think your anger blinds you, domer78. There's science and there's philosophy. The fact you are so blind that you can't see the difference is why militant atheists like you and your little pud-pulling friend look stupid, ill-informed and have the maturity of 12-year-old boys.

In short, the scientific method requires conclusions to be repeatable and reproducible, philosophy is opinion. Being human, they are often interlinked.

Example: A scientist has a philosophy believing too many people are angry and stupid. Using the scientific , method, the scientist researches means of detecting stupid, overly emotional people invitro. The detection method needs to be repeatable and reproducible. Once detected, the scientist then, again, uses the scientific method to either cure the problem invitro or abort the misfortunate creature. The results are tested by researching if society becomes more intelligent and less emotional over time.

 

[Cypress]

The Big Bang is only one of many theories. But you probably knew that.

Thanks for tacitly admitting that the Big Bang, the multiverse, the Many Worlds hypothesis, string theory are scientific ideas that are not repeatable/testable. Even though you claimed testability and repeatability are the only criteria that is allowed in science.

Back to Newton and others being infallible. They weren’t, were they?

No human being is infallible, and I challenge you to show a post of mine that indicated they were.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

“ but 99 percent of life is not repeatable and subject to laboratory experiments.” I don’t even know what the fuck that means.

Of course you don't. Ask your lil' penis-loving friend. He claims to have a PhD in Geochem.

 

[domer76]

This is why I think your anger blinds you, domer78. There's science and there's philosophy. The fact you are so blind that you can't see the difference is why militant atheists like you and your little pud-pulling friend look stupid, ill-informed and have the maturity of 12-year-old boys.

In short, the scientific method requires conclusions to be repeatable and reproducible, philosophy is opinion. Being human, they are often interlinked.

Example: A scientist has a philosophy believing too many people are angry and stupid. Using the scientific , method, the scientist researches means of detecting stupid, overly emotional people invitro. The detection method needs to be repeatable and reproducible. Once detected, the scientist then, again, uses the scientific method to either cure the problem invitro or abort the misfortunate creature. The results are tested by researching if society becomes more intelligent and less emotional over time.

Yep, there’s science and there’s philosophy. When did you come to that brilliant conclusion, Einstooge?

Your example is so absurd, it makes me wonder what time you start drinking in the morning.

I had more science under my belt by 8th grade than you’ve had all your life. So, try to avoid making yourself silly.

 

[domer76]

Of course you don't. Ask your lil' penis-loving friend. He claims to have a PhD in Geochem.

Why would I need to ask him? That’s a stupid suggestion.

 

[Cypress]

“ but 99 percent of life is not repeatable and subject to laboratory experiments.” I don’t even know what the fuck that means!

How many of the events of your life, or the experiences, thoughts, beliefs, and ideas you have had are subject to scientific testing and repeatability?

There is obviously an atheist blog out there that tells atheists to believe the only knowledge and truth out there is only by testable and repeatable laboratory experiments.

 

[Cypress]

This is why I think your anger blinds you, domer78. There's science and there's philosophy. The fact you are so blind that you can't see the difference is why militant atheists like you and your little pud-pulling friend look stupid, ill-informed and have the maturity of 12-year-old boys.

In short, the scientific method requires conclusions to be repeatable and reproducible, philosophy is opinion. Being human, they are often interlinked.

Example: A scientist has a philosophy believing too many people are angry and stupid. Using the scientific , method, the scientist researches means of detecting stupid, overly emotional people invitro. The detection method needs to be repeatable and reproducible. Once detected, the scientist then, again, uses the scientific method to either cure the problem invitro or abort the misfortunate creature. The results are tested by researching if society becomes more intelligent and less emotional over time.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of willful ignorance about science out there in the world.

That's what comes from spending too much time on atheist websites and podcasts.

Science famously includes scientific ideas that are not testable and repeatable - but are based on inference and philosophical deduction. String theory, the multiverse, the Many Worlds hypothesis, the Copenhagen interpretation, hyper-dimensional branes, among many others.

 

[domer76]

Thanks for tacitly admitting that the Big Bang, the multiverse, the Many Worlds hypothesis, string theory are scientific ideas that are not repeatable/testable. Even though you claimed testability and repeatability are the only criteria that is allowed in science.

No human being is infallible, and I challenge you to show a post of mine that indicated they were.

Man, you two are just as dense as it comes on these topics. You’re just bound and determined to get your deity inserted into this shit, no matter what.

Talk to the fucking theoretical physicists about how they arrive at their theories. The physics and math are way beyond me. And you, as well. Those are all merely theories, based on current observations of the physical universe. Some impossible to do with your fucking higher power.

 

[domer76]

How many of the events of your life, or the experiences, thoughts, beliefs, and ideas you have had are subject to scientific testing and repeatability?

There is obviously an atheist blog out there that tells atheists to believe the only knowledge and truth out there is only by testable and repeatable laboratory experiments.

Daily life is not a fucking scientific experiment. Are you high on something today? Or does something just go haywire with you when you see my post or gmark’s posts?

You seem to be fixated on atheist blogs. I’m not. Go look them up and report back to me.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of willful ignorance about science out there in the world.

That's what comes from spending too much time on atheist websites and podcasts.

Science famously includes scientific ideas that are not testable and repeatable - but are based on inference and philosophical deduction. String theory, the multiverse, the Many Worlds hypothesis, the Copenhagen interpretation, among many others.

Agreed. The willful ignorance is an emotional reaction. A refusal to admit something they dislike.

Echo chambers give weak people comfort. Braver people aren't afraid to stick it in there and wiggle it around. LOL

Part of the scientific method is to form a hypothesis then research methods to test that hypothesis. The link below is so simple even a 12-year-old atheist masturbator can understand it if they want to. If they just shut their eyes, plug their ears and shout "Nah-nah-hah!" then they are engaging in willful ignorance.

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

 

[Cypress]

Man, you two are just as dense as it comes on these topics. You’re just bound and determined to get your deity inserted into this shit, no matter what.

Talk to the fucking theoretical physicists about how they arrive at their theories. The physics and math are way beyond me. And you, as well. Those are all merely theories, based on current observations of the physical universe. Some impossible to do with your fucking higher power.

Thanks once again for tacitly admitting that there are many famous scientific ideas out there that are not testable and repeatable - the very criteria you claimed was the only things allowed in science.

Do you have an aversion to openly admitting you were wrong? Or do I have to keep pointing out you are tacitly confessing you are in error?

 

[Cypress]

Daily life is not a fucking scientific experiment. Are you high on something today? Or does something just go haywire with you when you see my post or gmark’s posts?

You seem to be fixated on atheist blogs. I’m not. Go look them up and report back to me.

It's a demonstration on how very little science actually explains about life, the universe, and everything.

Atheists typically vastly overestimate how much knowledge comes from scientific experiments.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. The willful ignorance is an emotional reaction. A refusal to admit something they dislike.

Echo chambers give weak people comfort. Braver people aren't afraid to stick it in there and wiggle it around. LOL

Part of the scientific method is to form a hypothesis then research methods to test that hypothesis. The link below is so simple even a 12-year-old atheist masturbator can understand it if they want to. If they just shut their eyes, plug their ears and shout "Nah-nah-hah!" then they are engaging in willful ignorance.

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

I just think there must be atheist books and podcasts out there that convinced garden variety atheists that all knowledge comes from scientific experiments.

To some very significant extent, science is built on philosophy, assumption, inference.

Science is based on the assumption and philosophical inference that nature is completely rationally intelligible.

Until the 1920s, a widespread scientific idea was that the universe was static and I unchanging. That was a philosophical preference, not a scientific discovery.

Until 1905 science had for centuries held the scientific idea that time and space were uniform. That was philosophy.

The multiverse is a philosophical preference that began to emerge when scientists began to realize in the 1990s that the universe is finely tuned on the edge of a razor. There is no data or experiments corroborating the multiverse.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yep, there’s science and there’s philosophy. When did you come to that brilliant conclusion, Einstooge?

Your example is so absurd, it makes me wonder what time you start drinking in the morning.

QED on an angry, emotional reaction and refusal to discuss the subject like an adult. Sad, but I expected nothing less of you, domer76. You've obviously been traumatized in the past on this subject. In other topics, you can be cool, calm and collected. On the subject of anyone disagreeing with your atheist beliefs, you become unhinged, angry and abusive. Did you have an abusive, overly religious family? Was your daddy an alcoholic Catholic who beat you and your mother?

I had more science under my belt by 8th grade than you’ve had all your life. So, try to avoid making yourself silly.

Then what happened? A tragic erotic asphyxiation accident damaged your brain?