science debate megathread

[SeventhSandwich]

I don't like the process of science. People rarely ask "Why should we", instead going "How should we". That's not to say I don't like what science brings, but I'd much prefer to be in a room with philosophers than I would scientists.

I'd just like to point out that a guy named McJobless is advocating for philosophy  

In my opinion through obersvation people seem to be into science because of mythbusters(aka pyrotechnicsbusters) and vsauce.

At the core of science is experiment and observation, and that's what mythbusters teaches. People who are passionate for science because of mythbusters would probably make the most curious and passionate scientists. Who are you to judge someone for why they like something? You don't like GMOs just because they're 'unnatural', which is synonymous with saying "I don't like that, but I can't explain why".

[Ad Bot]

[Harm94]

Political science is best science. forget that mainstream pyrotechnics bullstuff.

[SeventhSandwich]

Political science is best science. forget that mainstream pyrotechnics bullstuff.

Political science is pretty much not science at all.

[TristanLuigi]

[blueblur121]

0/10 not an aperture science edit.

[lolz??]

I'll stick with this

[Epicduke]

science rulez

[lolz??]

bump
ill only do it once

[Headcrab Zombie]

If you're going to call this the "science debate megathread" rather than "anti science" can you provide a topic that is actually debated; something that doesn't have a scientific consensus already established? Because the latter isn't debate, it's just a bunch of people who think they know more than the experts.

[Oasis]

Science is accidental, Religion is spontaneous and Philosophy is essential.

I don't like the process of science. People rarely ask "Why should we", instead going "How should we". That's not to say I don't like what science brings, but I'd much prefer to be in a room with philosophers than I would scientists.

Design, in my mind, will always take precedence over science.

I don't know why you're limiting yourself to one state of mind.

The way I see it, science is the understanding of how, which is the foundation. It is the brick and mortar to our understanding of the universe, our understanding to the workings of everything. Then I see philosophy, which is the understanding of the human experience, the magnificent edifice that sits upon science. Philosophy helps us see the world from a more down to earth perspective, it lets us discover happiness or reason within our lives as a species.

You've got two hands, why only yield one tool?

[McJobless]

I don't know why you're limiting yourself to one state of mind.

The way I see it, science is the understanding of how, which is the foundation. It is the brick and mortar to our understanding of the universe, our understanding to the workings of everything. Then I see philosophy, which is the understanding of the human experience, the magnificent edifice that sits upon science. Philosophy helps us see the world from a more down to earth perspective, it lets us discover happiness or reason within our lives as a species.

You've got two hands, why only yield one tool?

I need to watch what I post more often :/

That's a reaction to a number of scientists (a stereotype if you will) who refuse to care about the ethics or design of anything, and are completely devoted to the process. If you can't pump out results, your as good as dead.

I don't mean to insinuate that science is not necessary. It absolutely is. But I believe that design and philosophy should be much higher rated than science, at least now in an age where we've already advanced tech far more than thousands of generations previous combined. A Human Being requires a Human Knowing, and while it's fine to test out the physical limits of our world, I think it's much more important we even consider why we're here on the world and what we as a society should be working towards, and how our tech actually fits into that "perfect image".

[Harm94]

If you're going to call this the "science debate megathread" rather than "anti science" can you provide a topic that is actually debated; something that doesn't have a scientific consensus already established? Because the latter isn't debate, it's just a bunch of people who think they know more than the experts.

You mean everyone here? Pretty elitist there, also considering that no one here has a PHD...

[sir dooble]

You mean everyone here? Pretty elitist there, also considering that no one here has a PHD...

A PhD doesn't make someone an expert. Expertise comes from qualification and experience in the field you're studying.

And I don't think Headcrab's trying to claim that anyone here is an expert. But the difference between the posts that Headcrab Zombie and SeventhSandwich make and most everyone else in this topic, is that they're backed up with sources from credible journals and meta-studies, done by credible expert doctors and professors, who all publish their findings and their work, so that other credible scientists can cross-examine it.

They're not debating their opinions, they're expressing the results that are supported by countless credible experts from across the globe.


And even should none of us be experts, there are plenty members of this community who have a clear passion and understanding for science, combined with varying qualifications in those fields, and take an active interest in learning and studying these sciences.

[brickybob]

Political science is best science. forget that mainstream pyrotechnics bullstuff.

It's about as much of a science as computer science, and computer science is as much of a science as speaking Spanish.

[Ipquarx]

It's about as much of a science as computer science, and computer science is as much of a science as speaking Spanish.

Actually it's quite science-y. There's lots of math involved, computational complexity, optimization, etc...