Why I keep debating..........
January 19, 2016 at 5:22 pm
(This post was last modified: January 19, 2016 at 5:33 pm by Brian37.)
Some claim what is the use. Well one is that others who are not too far gone may read it and see that we are right. Most of the time you will go without knowing whom you pulled out of their delusion, that road often takes a long time for most, and by the time they realize it, you have no connection with them.
But, the other reason I do it is the comedy of errors and word salad they use to avoid facing the fact their logic is bad.
I am sure many here have run into "science doesn't know everything" or "science cant answer everything". And they respond ignoring that they are using a product of science to type their response.
Ok so just now on twitter I got a loony who railed against science, and I mean they thought it was evil, which is beyond simply saying "science doesn't know everything". The same false assumption that those who value it are suggesting we be emotionless robots.
Ok so this time the word game was trying to separate science from the word "technology". He tried to square his paranoia with the fact he was using a product of science. I have to admit, that was the first time I saw that dodge. HELLO MCFLY, "technology" isn't separate from science, it is the end result of using scientific method. Even with inventors who are not in a lab, they tinker and tinker and tinker, sometimes not realizing that the act of tinkering and revising is basically observing and testing and falsifying until they get to something that works.
Nobody thinks widely of car mechanics as scientists, but they really are. They have to know the parts of the engine down the the millimeter or inch. They have to have a basic understanding of the scientific reason a combustion engine works. They have to know all the complex parts and where they go, and morso today, they even have to have a working knowledge of computers and even programming.
Even with mechanics they have a standard they should go buy if ethical, and if a car doesn't start, they start the problem solving by trying to plug the least complicated possibility as to why the car wont start, IE, the battery cable, if not that, then the juice in the battery, if not that, then maybe a fuse or the starter or the ignition. What they don't do, or should not do if ethical, is tell you off the bat it is your transmission.
"I don't hate technology, I hate science"............ DERP!
Now don't get me wrong, scientific method is not a moral code. Products of science have been used for very horrible things. But the tool itself is not a religion, it is a process. Religious theocracies and one party states we consider immoral also use method to obtain their weapons.
But to call a process a moral code and claim nobody ever should use it is nuts, especially when you are using it to say such stupid shit. And why did this person jump on me? Not because the conversation was about computers, but because I mentioned the evil word "evolution". I only brought up computers because the idea of testing and falsifying is both how we make discoveries in biology and in technology.
But, the other reason I do it is the comedy of errors and word salad they use to avoid facing the fact their logic is bad.
I am sure many here have run into "science doesn't know everything" or "science cant answer everything". And they respond ignoring that they are using a product of science to type their response.
Ok so just now on twitter I got a loony who railed against science, and I mean they thought it was evil, which is beyond simply saying "science doesn't know everything". The same false assumption that those who value it are suggesting we be emotionless robots.
Ok so this time the word game was trying to separate science from the word "technology". He tried to square his paranoia with the fact he was using a product of science. I have to admit, that was the first time I saw that dodge. HELLO MCFLY, "technology" isn't separate from science, it is the end result of using scientific method. Even with inventors who are not in a lab, they tinker and tinker and tinker, sometimes not realizing that the act of tinkering and revising is basically observing and testing and falsifying until they get to something that works.
Nobody thinks widely of car mechanics as scientists, but they really are. They have to know the parts of the engine down the the millimeter or inch. They have to have a basic understanding of the scientific reason a combustion engine works. They have to know all the complex parts and where they go, and morso today, they even have to have a working knowledge of computers and even programming.
Even with mechanics they have a standard they should go buy if ethical, and if a car doesn't start, they start the problem solving by trying to plug the least complicated possibility as to why the car wont start, IE, the battery cable, if not that, then the juice in the battery, if not that, then maybe a fuse or the starter or the ignition. What they don't do, or should not do if ethical, is tell you off the bat it is your transmission.
"I don't hate technology, I hate science"............ DERP!
Now don't get me wrong, scientific method is not a moral code. Products of science have been used for very horrible things. But the tool itself is not a religion, it is a process. Religious theocracies and one party states we consider immoral also use method to obtain their weapons.
But to call a process a moral code and claim nobody ever should use it is nuts, especially when you are using it to say such stupid shit. And why did this person jump on me? Not because the conversation was about computers, but because I mentioned the evil word "evolution". I only brought up computers because the idea of testing and falsifying is both how we make discoveries in biology and in technology.
