TAHAWK 1420 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Scientists are only people. They are as capable of irrational worship of something as anyone else. Look what happened to the men who proposed: 1) that bacteria caused ulcers; or 2) that stress caused disease. They were literally laughed at because 99.99% of the experts knew they were wrong. Then, whoops!, their results were replicated by everyone who tried. The 99.99% were wrong, as they have sometimes been wrong over the millennia, "Everyone knew" nothing harmful leached out of Lexan. Study after study showed it was safe. Then it was noticed that the studies finding it safe were all paid for by plastic companies and all the lesser number of university studies kept finding BPA leeching out. Having university degrees is not conclusive proof of lack of prejudice. Personal example: when I was an undergrad "everybody knew" H. Sap. was the only species that used tools. When I pointed out seeing sea otters use rocks to crack open shellfish, I was told I was being anthropomorphic or misinterpreting what I saw. 99% were wrong. A number of species use tools. And CP, you need a better simile than eyewitnesses to a robbery or any other crime. They are legendary for their inaccuracy .Merlyn can cite chapter and verse on wrongful convictions based on eyewitnesses. There is science to support witness unreliability. . 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Scouter99 265 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Since light appeared to be made up of waves, lumininferous aether was proposed to explain the medium that held it, as waves (as they knew them) needed something to "wave". It wasn't a stupid proposal, and it wasn't anti-scientific, and was discarded soon after the M-M experiment. Ah, no. Michelson and Morley remained advocates of the aether and did not trust the results of their failed experiments, along with others who continued to check for the aether until 1930, 25 years after Einstein's Special Relativity, and 45 years after the experiments to prove the aether failed. Let alone that scientists invented then assume aether existed for a century before deciding to test for it. Why is that? Because, as TAHAWK said, scientists are humans and they are invested in things like anyone else. Some physicists refused to accept Einstein's work because he was a Jew, in Britain because it meant a blow to national pride, etc. What it boils down to is that Rick thinks that scientists are impervious to subjectivity, and they simply are not. That is a Falsificationist/Popperian view of science, and it's as real as the Garden of Eden. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Rick_in_CA 401 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 What it boils down to is that Rick thinks that scientists are impervious to subjectivity' date=' and they simply are not. That is a Falsificationist/Popperian view of science, and it's as real as the Garden of Eden. [/quote'] I never said anything of the sort. I think you are either being disingenuous, or have completely misunderstood what I have been trying to say. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Ah' date=' no. Michelson and Morley remained advocates of the aether and did not trust the results of their failed experiments, along with others who continued to check for the aether until 1930, 25 years after Einstein's Special Relativity, and 45 years after the experiments to prove the aether failed. Let alone that scientists invented then assume aether existed for a century before deciding to test for it.[/quote'] So, do you have a suggested experiment they could have done a century earlier? Again, you are criticizing them for simply being wrong, which is idiotic. Why is that? Because' date=' as TAHAWK said, scientists are humans and they are invested in things like anyone else. Some physicists refused to accept Einstein's work because he was a Jew, in Britain because it meant a blow to national pride, etc.[/quote'] Well, you didn't use those examples earlier, you simply pointed to scientists being wrong, as if that's some kind of "sin". What it boils down to is that Rick thinks that scientists are impervious to subjectivity' date=' and they simply are not. That is a Falsificationist/Popperian view of science, and it's as real as the Garden of Eden. [/quote'] As Rick has said, you're just being disingenuous now. Link to post Share on other sites
SSScout 1615 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Aether we are right or we are wrong.... The Theory of Dark Suckers explains all: http://www.rogermwilcox.com/darksucker.html#energy 1 Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Does anyone know what this thread is about, at this point? Link to post Share on other sites
pchadbo 60 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Medicrines, it is about Medicrines. A loon full of sugar helps the Medicrine go down. . . 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Scouter99 265 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Does anyone know what this thread is about' date=' at this point?[/quote'] I didn't even read the OP Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 To observe that scientists can be wrong is no more than to say they are human. To observe that they may attempt to crush those with different answers - that turn out to be more accurate - is simply the same. Few like to be corrected and the objective "scientific mind" is largely a myth. I find that if the topic is Climate Change (formerly "Global Warming") most will agree that conservation is important. Only so much room in the aquarium. (Then there's Rush.) It gets tougher when the causes of climate change are debated. Climate Change Deniers are no more edgy than Ice-Age-Ended-And Seas Rose 100 meters-Before SUVs deniers. I wonder what Muslims believe? Radical Muslims? Medicrines? Link to post Share on other sites
CalicoPenn 729 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Does anyone know what this thread is about, at this point? Yes - it's about using 19th century science to reduce radical islamist recruiting. Now stop trying to herd cats. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeBob 606 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 Yes - it's about using 19th century science to reduce radical islamist recruiting. Calico, that's pretty accurate. Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Does anyone know what this thread is about, at this point? . . . Now stop trying to herd cats. Link to post Share on other sites
RememberSchiff 3671 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 In my internet travels, I read this disturbing story about a recruited Colorado woman who had a Scouting background. "Colorado teenager, Shannon Conley, was sentenced Friday to four years in federal prison for conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The 19-year-old who now uses the name, Amatullah, which means “Female Servant of God,†was apprehended by federal authorities at Denver International Airport on April 8, 2014, after her father alerted the FBI to her plans. She was arrested as she was boarding a flight to Frankfurt, Germany where she planned to make connections to Istanbul and then on to Syria where she intended to marry a Tunisian jihadist she had “met†on the internet. ... Over the next five months, federal agents conducted a series of open and candid interviews with Conley and her parents during which the teenager told them about her plans saying she believed “jihad must be waged to protect Muslim nations.†She revealed that she had joined the U.S. Army Explorers, a career exploration program under the auspices of the Boy Scouts, to gain first-hand knowledge and experience in military skills, such as field first aid and marksmanship, and intended to use the firearm experience to wage jihad with ISIS. Conley, a certified nurse’s aide, said she also hoped to help the ISIS cause as a camp nurse in Syria." http://natmonitor.com/2015/01/24/teenaged-would-be-jihadist-sentenced-to-four-years-in-federal-prison/ Link to post Share on other sites
JoeBob 606 Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 Could somebody with more knowledge of Islam than I help me out here? Do female Jihadis get 72 virgins when they blow themselves up? Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Praise be to Allaah. We put this question to Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Jibreen, may Allaah preserve him, who answered as follows: This number is only for men. A woman will have only one husband in Paradise, and she will be satisfied with him and will not need any more than that. The Muslim woman – who is not influenced by the claims of those who propagate permissiveness and knows that she is not like men in her make-up and nature, because Allaah has made her like that – does not object to the rulings of Allaah or feel angry. Rather she accepts what Allaah has decreed for her. Her sound nature tells her that she cannot live with more than one man at a time. So long as she has entered Paradise, she will have all that she desires, so she should not dispute now about the delights and rewards that her Lord has chosen for her, for your Lord does not treat anyone unjustly. If she is one of the people of Paradise, then she is included, like men, in the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): “Trays of gold and cups will be passed round them; (there will be) therein all that inner-selves could desire, and all that eyes could delight in and you will abide therein forever†Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now