Forums - General Discussion - Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"Did Relativity rewrite classical mechanics?  Do we still not use them?  Do they not mathematically describe the common large object, low speed physics? ..."

this is irrelevant to what i'm saying... how could you possibly not see that lol

 

can you know for sure that everything put forward in classical mechanics and relativity is completely infallible and will never be rethought in the future... you should if you understand science

why are you treating this like a religion? aren't you against religion? lol

You think someday we will really rewrite Ohms law?  Or Newton's Laws of Motion?  Pascal's Law? Hooke's Law?


Perhaps this is better stated this way.  Applied physics probably won't have any reason to change....only added to.  Experimental physics will change because that is what is for and it develops the additions toward applied physics and, the 3rd branch, theoretical physics.  Theoretical physics lead to experiential physics.  Proposed and fringe theories of theoretical physics are going to be changed, altered, added to, etc...  But applied physics are pretty damn well locked in and unlikely to change regardless of what happens at the theoretical physics level.

 

"But applied physics are pretty damn well locked in and unlikely to change regardless of what happens at the theoretical physics level."

these are the kind of views i'd expect from a religious zealot; science is about doubt and constant refinement

the understanding that we constantly need to question, especially since science is observation based there is the chance that we can interpret things incorrectly

i'm not talking here about any individual laws but i'm saying that we should always have some degree of doubt on these things and think of ways to improve on them, especially because of problems like these

 



Around the Network
OhNoYouDont said:
o_O.Q said:

lmao do you understand the diagrams that i posted?

tell me what the diagrams are saying and how they apply to my argument and you'll get a cookie

You have a track record of misunderstanding definitions. You're not worth my time dude. Had you demonstrated any ability to recognize and move forward from the multitude of mistakes you've committed already I'd continue, but that isn't the case so my breath would be wasted educating someone so clearly deficient in many crucial respects as to be considered beyond hope.

Good luck to you in your menial existence.

lmao

now say it with me, waste is a part of the essential nature of technology... glad i could educate you 

here i'll post this again just in case it hasn't sunk in yet



o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

You think someday we will really rewrite Ohms law?  Or Newton's Laws of Motion?  Pascal's Law? Hooke's Law?


Perhaps this is better stated this way.  Applied physics probably won't have any reason to change....only added to.  Experimental physics will change because that is what is for and it develops the additions toward applied physics and, the 3rd branch, theoretical physics.  Theoretical physics lead to experiential physics.  Proposed and fringe theories of theoretical physics are going to be changed, altered, added to, etc...  But applied physics are pretty damn well locked in and unlikely to change regardless of what happens at the theoretical physics level.

 

"But applied physics are pretty damn well locked in and unlikely to change regardless of what happens at the theoretical physics level."

these are the kind of views i'd expect from a religious zealot; science is about doubt and constant refinement

the understanding that we constantly need to question, especially since science is observation based there is the chance that we can interpret things incorrectly

i'm not talking here about any individual laws but i'm saying that we should always have some degree of doubt on these things and think of ways to improve on them, especially because of problems like these

 

 

So you don't know the difference between applied physics, experimental physics and theoretical physics?

With specific regards to applied physics. Do we add to it?  Yes.  Do we rewrite it?  No.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"But applied physics are pretty damn well locked in and unlikely to change regardless of what happens at the theoretical physics level."

these are the kind of views i'd expect from a religious zealot; science is about doubt and constant refinement

the understanding that we constantly need to question, especially since science is observation based there is the chance that we can interpret things incorrectly

i'm not talking here about any individual laws but i'm saying that we should always have some degree of doubt on these things and think of ways to improve on them, especially because of problems like these

 

 

So you don't know the difference between applied physics, experimental physics and theoretical physics?

With specific regards to applied physics. Do we add to it?  Yes.  Do we rewrite it?  No.

these are the kind of views i'd expect from a religious zealot; science is about doubt and constant refinement

i mean you can disagree with me on that, but that's my opinion and yes i do know what you are talking about, i think the problem is actually the opposite

 

you mentioned ohms law, i remember using ohms law to calculate resistance in classes, for example... but again that's besides the point



o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

So you don't know the difference between applied physics, experimental physics and theoretical physics?

With specific regards to applied physics. Do we add to it?  Yes.  Do we rewrite it?  No.

these are the kind of views i'd expect from a religious zealot; science is about doubt and constant refinement

i mean you can disagree with me on that, but that's my opinion and yes i do know what you are talking about, i think the problem is actually the opposite

 

you mentioned ohms law, i remember using ohms law to calculate resistance in classes, for example... but again that's besides the point

Wha...what the?  You claim to have a degree in computer science and electronics and that's how you think of Ohms law?  As something you used in class?

But while we are on that, can you give me a plausible scenario where we would need to rewrite Ohms law?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

these are the kind of views i'd expect from a religious zealot; science is about doubt and constant refinement

i mean you can disagree with me on that, but that's my opinion and yes i do know what you are talking about, i think the problem is actually the opposite

 

you mentioned ohms law, i remember using ohms law to calculate resistance in classes, for example... but again that's besides the point

Wha...what the?  You claim to have a degree in computer science and electronics and that's how you think of Ohms law?  As something you used in class?

But while we are on that, can you give me a plausible scenario where we would need to rewrite Ohms law?

yeah... because we used it to construct circuits... that's how its used practically... in circuit design and analysis... i'm pretty sure i understand ohm's law better than you do

"But while we are on that, can you give me a plausible scenario where we would need to rewrite Ohms law?"

are you capable of comprehending this sentence?

" science is about doubt and constant refinement"

read that again and tell me what that means



bdbdbd said:

Organised belief in god is on the decline worldwide, but it's been replaced with other belief systems, that people take as religions. 

Even if the number of religous people would be going down in numbers, the extremism is on the rise and spreading worldwide. If the people are happy under the extremist conditions, I'd suggest them staying there where they are happy. But they don't, which leads us to two possible conclusions: 1. They aren't happy there, 2. These extremists are a threat to mankind.

Religions, like any other ideology, tries to force you to accept their sets of beliefs, if you don't, you don't deserve to live or you deserve to live only as slaves for the righterous.

I see your religious mindset gives you faith in science. Science doesn't work that way. It's only about if the benefits of science outweight the harm. Why would the nanomachines benefit your immune system? Is there something wrong with it, that it can't make it by itself? Why would you let a car to drive by itself, how it is better than you driving the car yourself?

The best example of what most would consider 'extremist' nations ruled by religion would be many of the Middle Eastern nations. While you will most definitely find many who dislike the ruling religious elite, you will also find a major % of the populace who like the system and fault the rest of the world for not being more like their nation and/or their variant of religious practice. However, you have zero evidence to show how this is a "threat to mankind". It is a threat to their citizens definitely. It is potentially a threat to some localized regional war. However, there is absolutely zero threat to humanity.

I don't have "faith" in science. Science doesn't work on faith. It works on testable and repeatable observation and tests to define facts. It is a fact that life has evolved over millions of years. It is a fact that large dense objects have gravitational forces. However, Science is not perfect and humans make mistakes. It is the possibility of the risk from the mistake that creates a larger potential threat to humanity than any small fraction of religions zealots.

I'm not sure if you asked these questions for some rhetorical reason or if you really don't know what the possible benefits are, but I chose to answer.

"Why would the nanomachines benefit your immune system?"
- Well, if our immune system was already perfect, I wouldn't get sick, cancer, allergies, etc. Not to mention faster healing from wounds or broken bones. The possibilities that nano machines could do for our amazing yet continuously evolving biological bodies is immense.

"Why would you let a car to drive by itself, how it is better than you driving the car yourself?"
- Self driving vehicles are already demonstrating that they are safer as they remove the human element. Will these systems still have failure and cause accidents? Of course. However, the rate at which accidents happen and the number of people that are hurt or die while driving will plummet as self-driving technology becomes the standard.