Religious affiliation of American scientists

[Into the Night]

This isn't about God.

This is about the claim specifically made by militant atheists on this thread that anything and everything that is not testable is simply just never allowed in the scientific profession.

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist', Cyborg. Science isn't a profession.

 

[gmark77]

It's actually really surprising that posters who claim to be scientifically literate just simply were not aware that untestable scientific ideas, inferences, philosophical interpretations pervade the scientific profession.

You really don't know what the word "hypothesis" means, do you?

 

[Cypress]

Why not? I use the same reasoning for your claims of God's existence as I would if I were testing a drug's efficacy or a defendant's guilt.

Running to the hills away from the claims previously made on this thread that untestable scientific ideas and inferences are never, ever allowed in the scientific profession?

 

[Into the Night]

The scientific ideas of string theory and the multiverse are untestable in any conventional scientific science.

String theory is not science. Illiteracy: Use of redundant term. Use of plural for singular.

The atheists on this thread hollered at me that anything that isn't repeatable and testable is not allowed in the field of science.

What 'atheists'??

The atheists were clearly wrong, since I gave numerous examples of scientific ideas and inferences that are not testable.

You have never given ANY example.

The only conclusion now is that atheists do not have the capacity or integrity to admit they were wrong.

What 'atheists'??

 

[Cypress]

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist', Cyborg. Science isn't a profession.

It gives me immense confidence that you, Phyllis Diller, and Perry PhD are the posters who seem to believe I am wrong.

 

[Into the Night]

First, garden variety atheists aren't militant atheists; they are dispassionate believers in fact. Militant atheists are overly-emotional and immature people as this thread proves.

Agreed, philosophy, and even religion, is a starting point. Most scientific advancements in ancient times were supported by religions to seek things like proving the existence of God/gods and predicting the future. An example is the Islamic Golden Age.

Scientific advances start with philosophy, but end with provable fact. Having a flawed hypothesis is one thing, but misinterpreting the data, such as the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System, can lead to further misunderstandings. Still, as history proves, better tools and continued research eventually find the truth.

Conversely, the militant atheists simply want to bitch and complain about the errors and not the eventual truisms. Sad.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) played a major role in interpreting the works of Aristotle, whose ideas came to dominate the non-religious thought of the Christian and Muslim worlds. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, translation of philosophical texts from Arabic to Latin in Western Europe "led to the transformation of almost all philosophical disciplines in the medieval Latin world".[69] The influence of Islamic philosophers in Europe was particularly strong in natural philosophy, psychology and metaphysics, though it also influenced the study of logic and ethics.[69]

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist', Sybil.
Go learn what 'fact' means.

 

[Into the Night]

You don’t have a college degree, do you, Dutch? You’ve also never taken a single class in psychology or psychiatry, have you? You have no background in the sciences, do you?

It shows.

Science is not a degree, Dumber.

 

[Into the Night]

It's a common militant atheist fault. Like MAGAts, they only see what they want to see.

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'. But yes, you Democrats see only what you want to see.

 

[gmark77]

Running to the hills away from the claims previously made on this thread that untestable scientific ideas and inferences are never, ever allowed in the scientific profession?

You really need to take a science class if you don't understand what a hypothesis is.

Wow. How can you seemingly watch so many Youtube videos on science and philosophy and not understand this?????

This is as bad as Creationists thinking they know what "theory" means in science. LOL

 

[Into the Night]

Militant atheists tend to put emotion over logic.

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist', Sybil.

 

[Cypress]

You really don't know what the word "hypothesis" means, do you?

Who was the one on this thread who mentioned, and explained, the Many Worlds hypothesis?

I'm not the one who howled that untestable scientific ideas and inferences were not ever allowed in science.

That was you and Domer.

Obviously, you have abandoned that claim and are running for the hills away from it.

 

[Into the Night]

I meant to write fake confidence, rather than weak confidence.

That poster Into the night pretends to be an expert on every topic under the sun, no matter how esoteric.

Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

IMO, fake confidence = weak confidence. They compensate by being a blowhard who brags about their wealth, their job, their car, their house, etc.

Sybil is weak, agreed, but he also has severe mental issues.

That you do, Sybil.

I suspect schizophrenia and do not believe a word his says.

Nothing to suspect. You have already shown it. That's why you are in a mental institution.

Others, like Perry and Spaz, are mentally deficient but not necessarily mentally ill.

You can't blame your problem on anybody else, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Sybil needs to be the subject of a clinical study, lol

He already is. He's in a mental institution.

 

[Into the Night]

You really don't know what the word "hypothesis" means, do you?

A theory is not a hypothesis. Hypothesis stem from theories, not the other way around.

 

[Into the Night]

Running to the hills away from the claims previously made on this thread that untestable scientific ideas and inferences are never, ever allowed in the scientific profession?

Science is not a profession. There is no such thing as an 'untestable scientific idea'.

 

[Into the Night]

You really need to take a science class if you don't understand what a hypothesis is.

Science is not a class. Science is not a hypothesis.

Wow. How can you seemingly watch so many Youtube videos on science and philosophy and not understand this?????

Science is not Youtube.

This is as bad as Creationists thinking they know what "theory" means in science. LOL

The Theory of Creation is not a theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

Who was the one on this thread who mentioned, and explained, the Many Worlds hypothesis?

I'm not the one who howled that untestable scientific ideas and inferences were not ever allowed in science.

That was you and Domer.

Obviously, you have abandoned that claim and are running for the hills away from it.

There is no such thing as an 'untestable' idea in science.

 

[anonymoose]

No.

But Crypiss seemingly can always find some deep, underlying "intellectual" meaning in the most mundane topics.
It's what makes him...
The Most Interesting Man on the Internet.

 

[Into the Night]

They are placeholders. They will become of interest when they can be tested by science.

There are no 'placeholders' in science. String theory is not a theory of science.