HIbbert: "I can't cure you, but I can tell you exactly how sick you are"

Homer: "What an age we live in"

Even if that was true though, the deception still has rules, and we understand said rules e.g. Newton's Laws. Even if this was just a computer simulation, those laws hold true in the simulation. 

The irony is that the person who is claiming tech hasn't advanced is communicating to you with something that was created only ~20 years ago...

Surprised this thread is still going.

But anyways while most of what I was saying about how its impossible to "know anything" was complete devils advocate I do stand by one thing I said

We in general do through way too many theories and hypothesis around as fact. Of course we have real science. Of course we have concrete things we know.

Science in general though is filled with huge egos, most of which have firm agendas they want to get across. This thread was half joking, half baiting but still real on a few things.

The general point to take is always aproach everything, even the things taught in the classroom, with a huge dose of skepticism. Research for yourself dont blindly believe because someone else tells you its a fact.

The problem with Scientists and people that follow everything they say, is that they try to figure everything out and when they can't they accept whatever our current level of knowledge is as fact. Instead of saying "I don't know", they just push whatever the best current answer happens to be, even though it might be wrong and disproven later down the road.

The problem with religious people is that if anything is too complicated to figure out, then God did it and we aren't meant to understand it. At some point they draw a line, and everything that crosses this line is simply man trying to play God.

We wouldn't have running electricity, water, and simple things like glasses for people that can't see well or Asthma inhalers for people that need them. I'm pretty sure if god made you blind or gave you bad lungs he was trying to get you killed by natural selection. So here we are playing God, when we should all be in darkness when the Sun goes down. Since I'm pretty sure that's what god intended.

No it really isn't...

Mistaking the ignorant for the educated is more of a social issue then science misreprenting anything. For example, a 2nd grade teacher may think that gravity is fact - a scientist will tell you that actually it's still just a theory. On the other hand some people will say that global warming is a theory. Wrong; it's fact, what the real question is, is what is causing the global warming. 

You sure do like to argue....

And I assure you science is filled to the brim with egos.  You put far too much faith in man my friend.  Even a scientist with all his instruments, calculations, tools, and methods at his core is a human.  All humans have ingrained beliefes and agendas some more so than others.

The realm of science attracks strong minds, and with that stronger egos.  Dont put science on such a high pedistal that it is beyond scrutiny.  Its a method made by man used to describe the universe around us.  Just as any system with a human element within it it will have flaws and shortcomings.  

I'm not arguing. I'm correcting false assertions. 

The scientific method is free from bias and therefore ego has fuck all to do with the results. Do you actually know any scientists? I do, and none ever claim to know more then they do. 

The fact that scientists tend to score poorly on the autism spectrum actually proves that they don't have strong egos as most aren't socially up to par. Plus science scrutinises itself....That's part of the scientific method...

You really need to actually use the scientific method and delve into higher education before you launch an attack on it which so far seems to be based on a gross misunderstanding of it. 

..........

You realize yiur basically backing up everything Im saying correct?  You seem interested quite a bit in science.  Ironically anyone reading this thread would probably agree your the one throwing around the most ego of anyone in here.

Theres two examples alone in your last post.  Rediculing my college experience (which by the way I went to and have a degree in Journalism) and running around how you "know scientists" like you know so much more than anyone else. 

This isnt an attack on science as I love the subject.  More of a warning.  You talk at length about how the scientific method trumps man, while complelty ignoring the fact that man is the one interpreting and understanding the data.  Man at his core is fundamentally flawed ane capable of error.  Science is filled in its history with examples of us using the scientific method and believing the data is telling us something which it isnt and which may be later corrected.

Your idea of Science is one which exists in a vacuum outside of mans influence.  Unfortunatly for your arguments sake this isnt the case

Informing you that you are wrong isn't ego. What's ego is you thinking you know a lot about something you've never studied. Informing you that you've made mistakes has nothing to do with ones sense of importance. 

How am I rediculing your degree exactly...? I haven't mentioned anything about it, but it is clear from the outset that whatever education you have recieved, it has not been one where you use the scientific method...Stating that is about as insulting as calling a historian a historian...The only ego on display here is yours as you seem to not want to admit that you aren't actually experienced in what you are criticising, resorting to ad hominems and tu quoque.

The scientific method was designed to remove the human element from determing answers. Man is capable of error, but LOGIC IS NOT. And logic is the foundation of the scientific method. 1+1 will always be 2 regardless of bias, ego or whatever. Also again it's clear that you don't have enough experience in this field because you claim that the interpretation of results can be flawed. Well that's why in a paper that section is called the discussion...Plus with the peer reviewed process and publication, the scientific community is able to scrutinise not just any conclusions but also methodolgy if they feel it is needed.