Religious affiliation of American scientists

[Into the Night]

Thanks for tacitly admitting that untestable scientific ideas and inferences have an important place in the scientific profession.

There is no such thing as an untestable theory of science. Science is not a profession.

No, they are not simply just a random 'place holders'.

They are logical inferences and deductions from existing scientific data and principles.

Science is not data. Science is not religion.

The Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics makes very specific logical inferences based on the mathematics of quantum mechanics. It's basically a philosophical interpretation of the ultimate meaning of quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics has no 'meaning'. Religion is not science.

Superstring theory is an elegant mathematical idea that makes very specific mathematical deductions about the nature of ultimate physical reality. But it is not testable, and there is nothing on the horizon that will ever make it feasibly and directly testable.

(edit to add: commence frantic Googling... now!)

String theory is not a theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

Wow. Debating science with you is weird. Wish you had some science background.

He thinks buzzwords are 'science'.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope.

You're attempting to backtrack and change the claims you originally posted.

You howled at me that anything and everything that isn't testable is simply not ever allowed in the scientific profession.

I was the one who pointed out that scientific ideas, inferences, philosophical interpretations, even if untestable, have been an important part of the scientific profession for centuries.

Science is not a profession. There is no such thing as an 'untestable' theory in science.

 

[Cypress]

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

ftfy....."String theory is considered by many to be untestable due to the extremely high energies required for direct experiments, making it impossible with current or foreseeable technology, and the "string landscape," a vast number of possible universes each with different physical laws, which makes it difficult to pinpoint a specific, testable prediction."

Google AI

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

It's fully understandable if they are mentally deficient liars living a fantasy life online as Perry repeatedly proves....especially in his obsession with you. Fascinating!

What also fascinates me is his repeated denial of being Perry despite all the evidence to the contrary. Normally I'd suspect some form of mental illness that results in a disconnect from reality but in his case, I suspect, in modern terms, an "intellectual disability" coupled with a dishonest personality. In older terms, he's a lying retard.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm the only one here using inferential analysis. It's clear you don't understand the concept so let me explain it to you:

When I test your claim "God exists" I collect data knowing that it will be potentially in error or contain errors. I attempt to eliminate as many errors as possible but recognize they continue to exist.

No such test available.

Your claim "God Exists" carries with it the negative: God does not exist. But I can't test that claim since it would require that I see all of the universe simultaneously and be sure God isn't "hiding" somewhere.

No such test available.

A scientist, therefore tests your claim by ASSUMING the negative claim "There is no God".

No such test available.

The goal in inference in science is not to test the negative claim but rather to test AGAINST the negative claim.

No such test available. It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not.

What this means is that after analysis I have found that I fail to find sufficient evidence to REJECT THAT NEGATIVE CLAIM.

A personal opinion, nothing more.

This is why I brought up court cases.

What 'court cases'?

The assumption of innocence is built in. But you don't test for innocence. You test for guilt assuming there is none. You are testing against the negative claim but you are not testing the negative claim.

A court is not science.

The final result is that I AM UNABLE TO REJECT THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

That's inference 101.

No, That's just logic. You cannot prove a circular argument either True or False. Any who try to do so commit the Circular Argument Fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

And what it means is NOT "There is no God" but rather that I am unable to reject that claim and feel like I am following the evidence.

It's really as simple as that.

No science involved here.

 

[Into the Night]

ftfy....."String theory is considered by many to be untestable due to the extremely high energies required for direct experiments, making it impossible with current or foreseeable technology, and the "string landscape," a vast number of possible universes each with different physical laws, which makes it difficult to pinpoint a specific, testable prediction."

Google AI

String theory is not a theory of science.
Illiteracy: Use of plural for singular.
Logic errors: Buzzword fallacies. Redefinition fallacy.

 

[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 theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

I don't find buzzwords interesting.

 

[Cypress]

It's fully understandable if they are mentally deficient liars living a fantasy life online as Perry repeatedly proves....especially in his obsession with you. Fascinating!

What also fascinates me is his repeated denial of being Perry despite all the evidence to the contrary. Normally I'd suspect some form of mental illness that results in a disconnect from reality but in his case, I suspect, in modern terms, an "intellectual disability" coupled with a dishonest personality. In older terms, he's a lying retard.

His denying being Perry, when the evidence is unequivocal he is, plus running away from claims he made earlier in the thread is classic Perry!

Run to the Hills -Iron Maiden​

View: https://youtu.be/86URGgqONvA?si=8orp89zreC-C_l-p

 

[Cypress]

String theory is not a theory of science!

The scientific idea of string theory was primarily invented and popularized by theoretical physicists and mathmatical physicists.

 

[Cypress]

Science is not a profession.

It really serves my cause that posters of the quality of you, Perry PhD, and Phyllis Diller are howling that I am wrong

There is no such thing as an untestable theory of science.

I didn't say theory.

Scientific theories by definition have already been tested, and passed the criteria of falsification.

Scientific ideas and inferences may, or may not be testable.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

His denying being Perry, when the evidence is unequivocal he is, plus running away from claims he made earlier in the thread is classic Perry!

Run to the Hills -Iron Maiden​

View: https://youtu.be/86URGgqONvA?si=8orp89zreC-C_l-p

Which is why the two most obvious reasons are mental illness or mentally handicapped. Given his behavior over time, I suspect the latter.

Good song. One that I'm certain @Jade Dragon would appreciate.

 

[Cypress]

I don't find buzzwords interesting!

ftfy....The multiverse, string theory, and the Many Worlds hypothesis are not buzzwords.
They are fully established scientific ideas that are widely recognized even by people with only a passing interest in science.

I wouldn't have even brought them up except for the fact militant atheists demanded I give examples that the field of science does have ideas and interpretations that are not testable.

 

[Into the Night]

The scientific idea of string theory was primarily invented and popularized by theoretical physicists and mathmatical physicists.

String theory is not a theory of science. Math is not physics.

 

[Into the Night]

It really serves my cause that posters of the quality of you, Perry PhD, and Phyllis Diller are howling that I am wrong

Your only cause is to try to impress people with your buzzwords. It doesn't work with me.

I didn't say theory.

Irrelevant.

Scientific theories by definition have already been tested, and passed the criteria of falsification.

It is not possible to prove any theory True. There is no 'passing the criteria of falsification'.

Scientific ideas and inferences may, or may not be testable.

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable (that means testable).

 

[Into the Night]

ftfy....The multiverse, string theory, and the Many Worlds hypothesis are not buzzwords.

Buzzword fallacies. Illiteracy: use of plural for singular. Void hypothesis.

They are fully established scientific ideas that are widely recognized even by people with only a passing interest in science.

An illiteracy is not science.
String theory is not science.
Buzzwords are not science.
Science is not a popularity context. There is no voting bloc in science. Populism fallacy.

I wouldn't have even brought them up except for the fact militant atheists demanded I give examples that the field of science does have ideas and interpretations that are not testable.

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'. There is no theory of science that is not testable.

 

[gmark77]

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

As per usual you confuse your use of a word with what the word means.

Clearly I've demonstrated you don't have a clue if you don't know that a hypothesis like the Many Worlds is just a placeholder without any evidence yet.

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.

Jesus you really can't stand being shown how ignorant of these topics you are, can you?

 

[gmark77]

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.

Not to mention that anyone who disagrees with Cy is by definition less than Cy. Cy knows all things. ALL THINGS. If you doubt it just ask him.

 

[anonymoose]

Not to mention that anyone who disagrees with Cy is by definition less than Cy. Cy knows all things. ALL THINGS. If you doubt it just ask him.

I'd say he considers everyone less than him. After all, he is...
The Most Interesting Man on the Internet.