Dynasty League Football Forum

JFever wrote:Side note, my gut tells me you may be a climate change denier. Am I close?

You mean someone who embraces actual science?

lol

Lotto4Life wrote:

JFever wrote:Side note, my gut tells me you may be a climate change denier. Am I close?

You mean someone who embraces actual science?

Please continue, I'd like to see that "actual science."

dynastyninja wrote:

Lotto4Life wrote:

JFever wrote:Side note, my gut tells me you may be a climate change denier. Am I close?

You mean someone who embraces actual science?

Please continue, I'd like to see that "actual science."

Lotto, just to be clear, as I'd hate to lose things in translation, you are insinuating that a climate change denier, "is" in fact a person that "embraces" actual science?

&**&&^%%$$*%%$# what? THIS is off topic, yes, I understand, but it too, is at the very foundation of most of our problems. It frankly depresses me. It, however, isn't so off topic that it can't be tied into how many fail to understand data, statistics, and evidence. It is common. Too common. After all, shouldn't we be on the same or somewhat similar page when it comes to precisely "how" we establish a truth from a non-truth?

JFever wrote:It frankly depresses me. It, however, isn't so off topic that it can't be tied into how many fail to understand data, statistics, and evidence. It is common. Too common. After all, shouldn't we be on the same or somewhat similar page when it comes to precisely "how" we establish a truth from a non-truth?

I have no idea what discussion is really going on here but as a quick aside I am going to make a comment in regard to "science"...

Let us not confuse "science" and "truth" because they are not one and the same. "Science" as it is generally practiced is what we have established as a general belief today. And I want to stress the word BELIEF because much of "science" is exactly that. And we also need to understand that with nearly everything in "science" there is not 100% agreement. There are some topics in "science" in which I get quite vocal in some communities because there is a misguided belief that what is generally accepted is also what is true when in fact it could be quite the opposite.

Ok. Where to start?

Skip, First, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you, Let US not confuse "science" and truth... I never did say they were the same. However, one inherently does lead to another. Let me help. Science is not a belief. Where that came from, I can only speculate. It is rather, a method of knowing. Frankly, it is nothing close to belief. It is rather a way of knowing. Look it up, it has Latin origins. I don't make $#&^ up. It is a process, a predictable repeatable process, of testing, retesting, proving and disproving. In a very repeatable, translatable manor. A manor that transcends idols, it transcends biases, and to be clear, science is in the business of proving itself wrong. This frankly then amounts to progress and it translates to technology. Most people love it (technology), but blindly accept it and rarely question how it came to be. IT IS NOT belief. What you are confusing as people not agreeing with science is simple. You are falling victim of biases being propagated by parties (sometimes mainstream media that represents a backer or a fund source), that often stand something to gain or lose. Usually, this revolves around power, money, economics, etc.

Ultimately, Facts and truths are derived FROM science which is a method. Facts and truths do not come from a single person of power or authority. There is no "Science" leader or president. The major theories of today are based off of the swings and misses of yesterday for example. Think of Medicine on this one. We as a society depend on science to continue to push further, to strive for understanding where there once was little or none. To be clear, this is HOW WE understand the world as we do today. NOT from some ancient book or from some ancient or current authority figure. Science isn't bound by that approach of blind acceptance or spoon feeding without question basically, because observing, questioning, hypothesizing, testing, collecting data, and repeating, is precisely how we take steps forward in ALL we do.

Bottom line. You my friend, could not have been more incorrect in your statement regarding science being a belief. It simply is not that. Not even close. I don't hold it against you though. Im used to it. I understand we live (assuming you live in the US) in a country where about 45-50% actually believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that the books of Genesis actually explain the origins of life, all this from an ancient book written by dozens of people separated by thousands of years, that has been translated and re-translated countless times, by people that were of power in order to bring constituents together in order to build a more powerful and condensed empire. (Constantine - Rome) You can look this up to if you wish. Bottom line, people in this country in particular, need to stop being spoon fed information without questioning. We need to understand the limits and the opportunities that Science brings. First however, they (you included) should start by understanding exactly what Science is and is not.

Oh, GM, per your jab from previous page, if this explanation is confused with bigotry, blame your parents and your teachers if that helps. Being called a bigot for putting to question unsupported, non fact based beliefs in a god, any god, let alone the western version of Christianity, is not bigotry, it's simply an attempt to point out the lack of thinking that is done due to early childhood indoctrination and brain washing. Evidence is important in my world.

Trump! lol

Scary and embarrassing on a global scale. Let's hope for the next. I'm skeptical like I've never been before. Uncharted waters. The powerful influence of social media is evolving into a very scary thing. It' beyond me how it unfolded.

JFever wrote:Science is not a belief.

I am going to stay away from the topic of science and Christianity (or other religions) as I don't think they are relevant but perhaps I worded things incorrectly so I will explain briefly what I mean.

Science itself is not a belief. To state that science leads to truth...that's not accurate. Science leads to knowledge and the presumption of truth. But the scientific community over and over and over again makes the same mistake. They will make definitive statements of truth and fight adamantly against opposition. Eventually the opposition becomes so great to the accepted truth do they finally buckle and give in. Are there things that are true? Yes. And there is a LOT that we can and have concluded from proper science. There is also a lot of accepted truth that is little more than hypothesis or theory based on a single view of the facts. But those facts may not support a single conclusion and this is the mistake that gets made.

My apologies for not being more specific in regard to a set topic as to this perspective and that is intentional. I do not wish to go down a road of debate in areas of my own study that draw different conclusions than what is popular in the scientific community.

Hey Skip. We agree. I don't think religion is relevant either. lol. So, we do have that in common. I am huge fan of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchins. I highly recommend reading their work. Quite enlightening. I also read some of your contributions and I believe we agree on Gun control to an extent as well. Anyway, let me respond to ya, When we use the word "Theory" in reference to Science (rather than in a slang manor), It can get misleading. Widely accepted truths are referred to as Memes or paradigms.

Anyway, in an attempt to clarify - A Theory is a well tested set of hypothesis that collaborate results and explain phenomenon. Theories are the result of extensive and meticulous data collection, multiple controlled experiments, performed over many years by 10's if not 100's of unrelated, un connected, well trained and educated professionals. The word theory IS NOT to be used lightly when referencing Science topics as it is incredibly powerful, backed by loads of reaffirming / contributing, repetitive, repeatable, consistent evidence, and frankly - has not been proven false yet. - ie - Evolution, Endosymbiotic theory, Big Bang theory, etc. It is this very process of science that leads to truth. Do not misunderstand Science, evidence, and philosophy and what philosophy has to do with truth. I believe you are going down the road of "perceived truth" which, in the world of science, means, really - nothing. Perception is reality in philosophy. Not so in Science. In science, reality is evidence.

Couple Examples quick while I have a minute, The Earth is a sphere and it is not the center of the universe, rather it revolves around the sun, our solar systems center = Truth. This truth was made possible at a time when the vast majority of the human population was dumber than it is today. (hard to believe considering the recent election of the most unfit president in the United states history, but true). Most assumed the world was flat. It wasn't and it isn't... hence - truth. Not perception of truth. Actual truth that was attained by the scientific method being used to raise awareness by questioning authority or widely assumed facts that... turns out, weren't fact. It was mentioned much earlier in this thread (multiple pages ago), that not everyone thought the world was flat. That is true, however, it is misleading. The vast majority of people during the times 1300-1700 simply did not go to school, or if they did, it was a very brief stint that included a little math, writing, and reading. MOST people did believe the earth was flat. For no other reason but because someone who was perceived to be smarter than they were, someone of power and influence told them it was. I mean, who were they to question?

Presumption of truth has NOTHING to do with Medicine (science). Think about that one next time a loved one of yours goes into surgery or you get a prescription filled by a pharmacist.

Science happens to be my own area of study. I'm also deeply interested in theology and for fun, I study it, it's history, its contributions, is variances etc. Frankly, the more I study, the intrigued I get by why so many believe blindly and question so little, in things they know so little about. It's nuts.

JFever wrote:Hey Skip. We agree. I don't think religion is relevant either. lol. So, we do have that in common. I am huge fan of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchins. I highly recommend reading their work. Quite enlightening. I also read some of your contributions and I believe we agree on Gun control to an extent as well. Anyway, let me respond to ya, When we use the word "Theory" in reference to Science (rather than in a slang manor), It can get misleading. Widely accepted truths are referred to as Memes or paradigms.

Anyway, in an attempt to clarify - A Theory is a well tested set of hypothesis that collaborate results and explain phenomenon. Theories are the result of extensive and meticulous data collection, multiple controlled experiments, performed over many years by 10's if not 100's of unrelated, un connected, well trained and educated professionals. The word theory IS NOT to be used lightly when referencing Science topics as it is incredibly powerful, backed by loads of reaffirming / contributing, repetitive, repeatable, consistent evidence, and frankly - has not been proven false yet. - ie - Evolution, Endosymbiotic theory, Big Bang theory, etc. It is this very process of science that leads to truth. Do not misunderstand Science, evidence, and philosophy and what philosophy has to do with truth. I believe you are going down the road of "perceived truth" which, in the world of science, means, really - nothing. Perception is reality in philosophy. Not so in Science. In science, reality is evidence.

Couple Examples quick while I have a minute, The Earth is a sphere and it is not the center of the universe, rather it revolves around the sun, our solar systems center = Truth. This truth was made possible at a time when the vast majority of the human population was dumber than it is today. (hard to believe considering the recent election of the most unfit president in the United states history, but true). Most assumed the world was flat. It wasn't and it isn't... hence - truth. Not perception of truth. Actual truth that was attained by the scientific method being used to raise awareness by questioning authority or widely assumed facts that... turns out, weren't fact. It was mentioned much earlier in this thread (multiple pages ago), that not everyone thought the world was flat. That is true, however, it is misleading. The vast majority of people during the times 1300-1700 simply did not go to school, or if they did, it was a very brief stint that included a little math, writing, and reading. MOST people did believe the earth was flat. For no other reason but because someone who was perceived to be smarter than they were, someone of power and influence told them it was. I mean, who were they to question?

Presumption of truth has NOTHING to do with Medicine (science). Think about that one next time a loved one of yours goes into surgery or you get a prescription filled by a pharmacist.

Science happens to be my own area of study. I'm also deeply interested in theology and for fun, I study it, it's history, its contributions, is variances etc. Frankly, the more I study, the intrigued I get by why so many believe blindly and question so little, in things they know so little about. It's nuts.

We were going in two different directions here. I guess I am not making myself all that clear but maybe this will make more sense since you bring up medicine. While there have been many advances in medicine there have also been many errors. Things believed to be true that were held onto by the establishment even though there was mounting evidence to the contrary. It is to the point today that there is an arrogance that if you believe anything other than this established truth then you are somehow ignorant or deceived. The irony of it is that those in the establishment are the ones allowing themselves to be ignorant.

Ok. I think I got ya. True science and the purest methods of science are not arrogent however. People and their personal motivating factors or influences absolutely can contribute to what you are commenting on though. Sticking to medicine here. I agree, certain paradigms can be tough to shake primarily because people are creatures of habbit. through the process, however slow, delayed, or bumpy it may be, science still pushes our civilizations forward.

Science itself is not bias, but the people that practice it, sure can be. For example, science asserts that we must be curious, observant, and that we must question all. It is this questioning that differentiates science from belief or any type of blind faith.

Hey guys. Let's not get side-tracked. I'm still waiting to hear from Lotto4Life, though I imagine he's not aware this discussion is still going on.

You already know what he is going to say. Or at least I'm pretty sure I do. I guess, for entertainment value, it would be cool. I think Coogs chimed in an provided a little of that though. Cripes, how much do ya want? lol.