PLAYER, you are way off track on everything you said to me.
I said scientists make assumptions. You disagree (No No No). I respond.
Then you go on to explain why scientists make assumptions.
You say you won't argue semantics. But distinguishing the difference of saying something
happens (which infers
some of the time) and saying something
always happens is not semantics.
You say you are speaking of the whole body of science, not particular individuals. I was speaking of scientists. Scientists are individuals. If you are going to change the subject, it would be a good idea to make that clear. Because from post number one, this thread referred to "scientists", not "the whole body of science".
I know scientists often prove that their ideas are wrong. What assumptions you made to think otherwise, I can only guess.
Then you again say I am arguing semantics and you go on about Creationists when I made it clear that I was not referring only to Creationists in my first post.
And then you make the astoundingly silly claim that if a scientists doesn't live up to the standards that
you set out, he is not really a scientist. Sorry, you can't just pick the scientists that support your arguments and discard the rest. Haha! Nice try though!
And another funny one is when I said you need to get away from using the absolute thought of "never"...and then you say that now I'm using the word "never". I was using it to describe your thoughts!
PLAYER57832 wrote:You have to distinguish between individual scientists and the body of knowledge that we call science. Individual scientists make all sorts of claims, but it does not become part of the body of knowledge, the collective unit we call "science' that is taught and disseminated until it goes through several checks. Even so, most information is qualified and considered tentative until it goes through even more rigor. Each field defines its own standards.
A clear example of how you are trying to change the subject. In your first post you said
"what assumptions do you feel scientists make that are wrong?" and now you trying to change it to
"the body of knowledge that we call science".
Then you imply that some scientists out right lie. Boy, that's even worse than making incorrect assumptions.
Then, you pompously corrected me when I said
"I think some science is valid and some science is not valid.":
PLAYER57832 wrote:I believe what you really intended to say is that some results are valid and some are not.
when it was
you who asked the question(s):
PLAYER57832 wrote:Is science valid or is anybody allowed to come up with any ideas they like and put it forward as science?
Haha! Now who's arguing semantics? You are correcting
me for answering a question in the same way that
you asked it.
PLAYER57832 wrote:TheProwler wrote:Is anybody allowed to come up with any ideas they like and put it forward as science?
Sure, why not? It's a free world
. If their ideas are entirely ridiculous, I don't think they will be given much of an audience.
No, and here is the crux of where you are wrong. Anyone can come up with ideas and anyone can investigate them. But only if they follow procedures that ensure a lack of bias, that results are repeatable and genuine, only THOSE people are really doing science. The rest are fakers.
You asked if anybody was allowed to do something and I answered the question and my answer is correct.
Can anyone play the violin and put it forward as music? In the same way, the answer is "Yes". Heck, I'll do it. It'll sound really bad and nobody in their right mind will like it. But that doesn't stop me from putting it forward as music.
I said:
"If their ideas are entirely ridiculous, I don't think they will be given much of an audience."
For the violin:
If the music sucks, I don't think I will be given much of an audience.
Maybe you wanted to ask
"Is anybody allowed to come up with any ideas they like and put it forward as science and have it accepted by the scientific community?"
But you didn't.
