RE: Why I Don't Want To Be An Atheist
November 3, 2016 at 12:57 pm
(November 2, 2016 at 1:14 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: (November 2, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Drich Wrote: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/11/...415399496/
The story identifies the claim from cern that the H/B was discovered, then they also put forth several competing theory that state the H/B was not found, but rather the decay rates that point to the H/B (which again if you watch the video is what they initally had) which accoding to this paper lends it self to at least two different competing theories:
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.....90.035012
That's an alternative theory set with very little support. It's basically all the same theory. They propose a new fundamental force that nobody has ever caught wind of. That's weak, Drich. That some yahoos have a fringe theory which also accounts for the data does not deserve the words fraud or debunked. And I don't give a damn how the Higgs researchers dealt with their funding, it's your word as a science ignoramus that it impacted the results.
That's where you are wrong. My word is not part of this equation. My 'word' is only used to direct you to the paper that debunks the 'H/B' only discovery. the article that says the Nobel prize was issued because it was thought that proof of the particle was found, and to the documentry that says another version of the research was used to secure funding for the CERN project.
Again You attempt at a character assassination fails to address these indisputable facts. Calling me stupid does not change the content of the paper written that refutes the 'proof' of the H/B. It does not change the documentry that shows the scientists had all the same info, but repackaged it, nor does it change the article that states the Nobel Committee was fooled (as was the rest of the world) that the H/B was found. Because that what the 'scientific method' vetted out in 2014.
Again, I am just point out the man behind the curtain here, via the written words of those in the industry. If you don't like the spoiler don't blame me, but at the same time you can keep pretending OZ is an untouchable smoke monster.
Quote:You keep quoting this one story from this one group of scientists like it's going to make your claims. It doesn't.
THAT IS MY CLAIM!!!
How are you this dense?
This whole arguement is about peer review!
My whole arguement states that on this level of scientific discovery/theory the scientific community at large bottle necks. That means there are very few people to refute any claim. This is by design. because anyone who wanders too far from the planned path is discredited. That means with in the small pool of scientists who have direct access to unfiltered raw data, they are within throwing distance of their "independent" schools of thought. Meaning there are no creationists been given multi billion dollar grants to build their own particle accelerators. Why? because their theories are mocked and scoffed at, which again means those who are deemed proficient enough to work on this level of discovery are pretty well all on the same page. Which gets further reduced down by the cost of the equipment and number facilities that can be used to generate the raw data needed to postulate theories and test them.
So the fact that there is only one other team that says 'nut-huh' point to what I have been saying from the beginning. It takes a huge amount of faith to believe in the scientific process at this level. especially when so much of it is sold off to whom ever funds these types of projects.
Quote: They've got an alternative theory of what the CERN team discovered. Well whoopity doo, theories are like opinions, everybody's got one. Simply having an alternative, poorly supported theory does not 'debunk' the CERN data. I did my due diligence, you're the one who failed. You see what the scientists have done through your own particular lense but you've failed to actually document that there was anything wrong with what they did. And this single point theory of yours doesn't wash either because there were two separate experiments conducted at CERN, by different teams of people, and they agreed on the final result.
As stated, you're ranting, making bold claims about corruption in science, but when asked for the evidence, it doesn't live up to your hype.
Again you missed the boat. I am not nor do I care anything about the higgs boson. That subject is only the vehicle used to frame the topic of discussion.
So one more time I am pointing to the lack of 'peer' review/accountability at this 'scientific' level. For example you point to the one article that opposes the cern findings. Who then besides the cern scientists object to the findings in the linked paper or subsequent article?
Are you starting to get it yet?
Can you see where the faith comes in and fills all those gaps in 'science?'
Quote:Whether or not the Nobel committee erred in giving out the prize is a matter of opinion.
again i point to the article. according to it, The prize was given because the evidence and work provided to the nobel committee suggested that definitive evidence was found to support the Higgs Boson theory.
In a new paper that has raised eyebrows around the world, an international team of scientists says there is no proof that the particle whose discovery was confirmed last year by physicists at CERN is the long-sought Higgs boson.
Quote:The one person qualified to comment on that has already weighed in against you. Regardless, that still would not justify your claims. The CERN discovery is supported by the standard model of physics, the most supported theory in physics.
The raw data maybe supportable as everyone involved is using it to come up with other possiblities to the H/B, the fact that these guys were being leaned on (watch the video tremoundous pressure) and a year later they produces exactly what they were told to produce, IS indeed corruption especially when the rest of the community supports the data but not the conclusion CERN put fourth.
Quote: That isn't corruption, that's basing one discovery upon prior discoveries. That's the way it works.
Actually it doesn't work that way. As what was found was not based on prior discoveries but in fact the same data repackaged. again watch the video.
Quote:None of this shows corruption in scientific discoveries or that science is a religion.
then you are delusional. Cern represented 'evidence' that convulsively proved the Higgs Boson theory. Aside from the huffie article that says this was the repersentation of the cern discover, we have the nobel committee who was fooled into thinking this, and we have a paper that refutes thenotion that the data compiled can only be used to proove the existence of the H/B.
That.. my confused forum mate, shows a deliberate deception by the CERN scientists. Do you really need some higher authority article to make that judgement call for you? can't you make that call? Are you so brain washed as to think that The cern Scientists IF they were wanting to be 100% truthful at the time the Nobel committee selected Higgs and Boson to receive the prize they would have stepped up and said, "wait a minute, these findings could also support 1/2 a dozen other theories even theories that directly contradict the H/B theory..."
but they didn't.
By not recognizing the failure of the nobel committee made in awarding the wrong people the 2014 award, you selectivly changed the prameters of the arguement to be more agreeable to what you want to believe.. because you cut out the evidence that showed corruption.
Is this what you are passing as critical thought now a days?
So How do I know what the committee thought?
because their misconception is spelled out in the title of the award given:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...ates/2013/
Your efforts to suppress this truth is what makes your whole synopsis delusional at best.
Quote: Science isn't an object of worship by the masses. It's an object of respect, respect that has been earned, by producing the goods. Perhaps the cutting edge stuff is more speculative than you'd like, but that's the nature of the beast. It doesn't impugn the reputation of science in the way you think it does.
define worship.
Merrium-webster:
3
: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4
: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem
Both definitions (2:4) fit.
Faith is at the core of my arguement against science.
It takes an equal if not a larger amount of faith in science to accept it as the gospel truth, as it takes to belief in God.
Faith is what has blended all of the corruption I provided evidence for, faith is what got you to purposly ignore what the Nobel committee was lead to believe and faith is what is going to get you to call me names and try yet another time to discredit me as an individual 'unworthy' of blaspheming your beliefs, so you can reset yourself and pretend none of what I said matters.
That is the same Kind of scarry 'faith' the westbro baptists have.
are you new here?
