The Ownership of Science

[The Architect Of Fate]

 Marx is always advocated centralized and planned economy. Equal distribution of economic resources is the essence of Marxist thesis of social evolution.

To say this is Marx's central thesis is false

[GUBU]

This is a really fucking stupid question. Science is simply a way of describing reality, in fact it is by far the best and most accurate one that humanity has found to date.

[LadyForCamus]

We’re not on the same page here. The point is whether you have a problem with anyone using scientific facts to arrive at some unproven conclusion.

---

Works perfectly but you don’t have to like it and that’s fine. Same as saying “an infinite multiverse” which I don’t like but I’m not criticizing those scientists who support this view based on their work on other scientific areas such as string theory or quantum mechanics.

Logically it doesn’t work at all, let alone ‘perfectly’. If your premise assumes the conclusion, you’ve committed a fatal fallacy in basic logic. It’s nothing to do with me not liking it. Try it without God in the argument, and it STILL doesn’t work. Something like this:

-My car was specifically designed to transport ducks.

-I transport ducks in my car.

-Therefore, my car was specifically designed to transport ducks.

A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy, regardless of the subject of the argument.

Boru

He’s really killing it with his ‘free-of-charge’ logic exercises, isn’t he?

[Foxaèr]

Science is science, unless one is a theist who wants to befoul science by erroneously believing that creation science or intelligent design is in any way real science.

[Simon Moon]

Then please explain why, the vast majority of physicists (72%) from all over the world are atheists. What do you know, that these people who have dedicated their lives to study, actually work in the appropriate fields of science, and actually understand it, do not know?

And even the vast majority of the rest of them, are deists, not theists.

The fact the parameters of the universe are very specific, and if changed, the universe would not have brought forth and sustains life, does not offer a shred of evidence that it was designed that way.

How many other universes have you been able to compare our universe to? Please describe, without unsupported assertions, what an un-designed universe would look like.

We’re not on the same page here. The point is whether you have a problem with anyone using scientific facts to arrive at some unproven conclusion.

---

Why would I have a problem with what goes on in the minds of others?

People draw incorrect conclusions based on bad information, or misunderstanding good information all the time.

That is why Occam's Razor is such a great tool. As the principal of parsimony states, Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

[no one]

This one time, this girl I knew, owned science, then she blinded me with it.

[Paleophyte]

You need to look this up more but the universe is fine-tuned for life and this is confirmed and mentioned by many scientists. This means that you don’t like theists using this fact to support their position.

Congratulations on proving your point. The universe is not fine-tuned for life. Life is reasonably well evolved for the universe. The current conditions are a very short-lived state between the super-heated quark-gluon plasma of the Big Bang and a near eternity of slowly evaporating supermassive black holes.

[slartibartfast]

Not really, but if we have to argue What Is Words And How Do They Do!?! from the outset, your objections are almost certainly going to be inane.

Pretty simple, and simply inane.  The universe isn't fine tuned for life.  You're a puddle of water marveling at how perfectly the hole was made for you.  Your hypothetical theist is wrong on the facts - and spouting speudoscientific claptrap, instead.

You need to look this up more but the universe is fine-tuned for life and this is confirmed and mentioned by many scientists. This means that you don’t like theists using this fact to support their position.

Your thoughts around the above are very presumptuous and make many assumptions. 

"Life" as you likely define it is carbon based and requires a bunch of universal constants to be just so, solid planets, as well as availability of raw matter and local parameters such as temperature range to provide liquid water into the mix for good measure. 

That is far too narrow a definition. We have no idea whether:
1. Life in our Universe can potentially be based on other elements altogether, ie. not carbon based but for instance Silicon and Ammonia based instead
2. Life in other universes with different universal constants could take completely different forms which we can't even imagine

The point being you are trying to making assertions of "truth" from a very limited field of reference.

The reason why it appears to you that the Universe is fine-tuned for life is that you happen to be alive on a seemingly perfect, solid, goldilocks-zone planet, surrounding a stable, long lived star, in an area of our Milky Way galaxy that has not had any catastrophic events within a Universe that allows this type of thing to randomly form. If you happen to be alive in a different Universe where, say, atoms (and therefore planets) don't exist, everything is floating in a primordial soup, and you are made of something other than atoms, then you would probably come to the conclusion that those are the perfect and only conditions that support life. 

Humans thinking that we are somehow "special" is one of the great fallacies. The more we learn about the world we live in, the more we come to realise that we are not special at all.

[Ahriman]

You need to look this up more but the universe is fine-tuned for life and this is confirmed and mentioned by many scientists. This means that you don’t like theists using this fact to support their position.

Congratulations on proving your point. The universe is not fine-tuned for life. Life is reasonably well evolved for the universe. The current conditions are a very short-lived state between the super-heated quark-gluon plasma of the Big Bang and a near eternity of slowly evaporating supermassive black holes.

Stupidest shit I've ever heard.

[Paleophyte]

Congratulations on proving your point. The universe is not fine-tuned for life. Life is reasonably well evolved for the universe. The current conditions are a very short-lived state between the super-heated quark-gluon plasma of the Big Bang and a near eternity of slowly evaporating supermassive black holes.

Stupidest shit I've ever heard.

How do you figure?