RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 19, 2014 at 11:08 am
(This post was last modified: September 19, 2014 at 11:14 am by Mister Agenda.)
(September 18, 2014 at 1:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(September 18, 2014 at 12:49 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Please give an example of something that science once said was impossible is now possible.
"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -Albert Einstein
The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible
Meteorites: The French Academy of Sciences famously stated that "rocks don't fall from the sky". Reports of fireballs and stones crashing to the ground were dismissed as hearsay and folklore, and the stones were sometimes explained away as "thunderstones" - the result of lightning strikes.
Warm superconductors. Thought to be impossible.
Black holes,1st mooted in the 18th century
Entangled particles that behave as if they are linked together no matter how wide the distance between them
Yeah, that was not a well-thought-out challenge.
(September 18, 2014 at 1:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: And i'd have it no other way. Point is, what evidence currently unknown to us will change what we currently think of as impossible?
That is, to deny something with current evidence prevents science making progress.
To affirm something current evidence doesn't justify impedes science just as much. The null hypothesis is one of the most powerful scientific tools. It's what spares us from the likes of phrenology and homeopathy.
(September 18, 2014 at 1:53 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:Quote:Ok, so double slit experiments? Also psuedoscience?
WTF are talking about now. I never said anything about the double slit experiment. I said the mind-matter interface example.
Um... The "observer effect" via wave function collapse as a result of observation is a concept resulting from evidence from the double slit experiments. These concepts informed mind-matter interface experiments.
I'm just curious how deep youre going with regard to the concepts being pseudoscience?
You know the 'observer effect' applies with any kind of detection device, right? No consciousness required.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.