The Fight Against Ignorance

When you believe whatever is told to you because it is told by a guy in a lab coat and thick glasses, how are you any different from those who believe whatever is told to them by a guy in a robe and a giant hat?

Think critically. Don't be sheep.

God, aliens, and ghosts cannot be tested in a lab with meter readings and test tubes. Are they real? Thousands of humans say so.Yet, these humans are idiots for thinking such things. "We have the technology to take E.T back home" - Developer at Boeing

The sum of our knowledge is an infinitesimal flyspeck when measured against the sum of all knowledge.

Only human arrogance thinks that because he cannot understand something, it must therefore be beyond understanding.

Again, I refer back to my commeme (portmanteau: comment + meme = commeme. Cool, right? Feel free to run with that).

The last person I'll trust, is the one who starts off by saying; "Trust me..." Thank you, no. I have my own brain and I will use it if you don't mind.

The problem with "science" right now, is that there's so many conclusions floating around out there, calling themselves science when they aren't science at all. What's worse, all this pseudo-science and junk-science behaves almost like a religion, and by that I mean this;

"Accept what we say, and do not question it. We are smarter than you are, and are privy to more knowledge. We are better educated. Our understanding is greater, and you must trust us. Don't believe the skeptics and critics, they are all fools and idiots." That is not how science works. That is how religion works.

Exactly! Everyone says "But the scientists have surely tested it". If you cannot provide the test itself, and double-check it independently, then you have proven nothing. The claim that something has evidence, even objective evidence, proves nothing. Only the evidence itself, when combined with proper reasoning, can lead to a good conclusion. Let ideas be judged by their accordance to evidence and sound logic. Proof that is claimed but not provided is no proof at all.

Many people lash out in anger at others because they have never learned to learn. Many who deny science use it daily. If they deny science so strongly, why do they not give up their automobiles, their electric devices, their clothes made of man-made fibers.

I think you're confusing science with man made inventions. Science is a way to study and explain our universe. For example, gravity doesn't exist because because of science; science is just a process to study, explain, and understand gravity. The scientific process (a.k.a science) may have helped create inventions but science in of itself is not the same as an invention. Lastly, a person can reject one scientific theory without rejecting all other scientific theories. For example, I personally reject the hypothesis that carbon causes statistically significant global warming but I accept the theory that the existence of mass creates a gravitational effect.

You fail to consider one of the sciences used to create the inventions: the science of engineering. If you don't think that's a science, then you don't know squat. It involves several aspects, but regardless if it's chemical, structural, or electrical, all engineering boils down to mathematics. Our earliest ancestors had to deal with it. How did they make the earliest knives? Trial and error and observation. Long before we understood how to extract metals from rocks, our ancestors used rocks themselves to make their tools. But it wasn't just pick up a rock and use it as a knife. They had to experiment, just like in science class, to find which rocks made the best knives, how to shap those knives, and even how to keep them sharp. For that matter, even before knives, rocks were used as a weapon by hurling then at a possible opponent, or directly bludgeoning a person or dinner with one. How did they know that would kill their supper? Seeing a tribal member get hit in the head by a blunt object? Realizing that they could make a blunt object by using a stout tree branch. Eventually, they added a rock to the end for and early axe. All by following the principles of science.

Many creatures today use various scientific methods without understanding the scientific principles behind them.

I ask,can you name one modern invention that does have science at its core.

Well said to you both. I think the difference is scientific study vs practical application of science. Medicine and nursing are both sciences also. That do science (research) and apply science in providing care.

Thanks bohnson

I believe our disconnect lies with our different definitions of "science." Fortunately for us, there will be no impact to the world if we don't agree on the definition of science. Happy memeing!

http://i.imgflip.com/1g45th.gif

Damn it. I posted it and then saw yours.

It's all good! LOL

Ice doesn't form until late melts early temperature fluctuation from warm to cold . Record heat in summer, insect infestation where they didn't exist before, trees dying from heat related stress etc, ect. Denying this is happening on a global scale is insane

We can't stop climate change, but we can definitely slow it down.

That is assuming that climate change is due to human activity. I have yet to see a correlation coefficient from the ice core data to prove or disprove any relationship between human activity and global climate.

Even if that is true, to what level would we be able to stop it and at what cost?

We could use cheaper, cleaner, and more sources of energy such as solar and wind power. Coal energy is non-renewable, and it takes effort to find coal. It also contaminates the atmosphere in carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, whereas solar panels tend not to do that.
We could turn off our lights during the day and use sky lights to light up the darker areas of our homes.
Cars and trucks also burn a lot of fossil fuels and contaminate the atmosphere. However, we don't have to drive everywhere: Around the cities, public transportation such as buses and light rail are used to transport multiple people around, whereas cars are used for only a limited number of people around. Trains also help decrease fossil fuel usage: Loads of people and cargo can be taken around with the power of a few locomotives, electric trains help decrease the use of fossil fuels, and maglevs help decrease the need of energy and time altogether. The only problem with trains is that the government is less willing to pay for trains here in the U.S. unlike the governmental bodies in countries such as Germany and Japan.
I could go on about ways of slowing down climate change. Yes, the costs are strong, but should we trade out the environment for the purpose of huge coal and oil businesses? Should we poison the fish that we put on our children's plates for the purpose of charging our phones? Why shouldn't we work hard for the benefits of the clean, efficient, and green future we dream of? Couldn't we give ourselves a bit of time to go to Mars, maybe further before we end up being the ones to destroy the world with fire and smoke?
If the world was in God's image, then why do those who say they support God also run huge businesses that destroy the world their Creator has provided for them?

Sure, we could do our best impression of the third world as you suggest - wouldn't help. Leaving aside the bizarre fear-mongering theology that global warming has become, three items stand out: 1- the earth is actually cooling; 2- the temporary minor cyclic bump up is inevitable no matter what increasingly draconian measures are forced on people, 3- The major contributors to the problem are India, China, and developing nations, who have shown a great willingness to let everyone else work on the problem while they shirk their responsibility. In the end, the problem can only be solved by reducing earth's population, finding new real estate out there - and - of course - nuclear power. That alone would be a major help. Very sad that fear and ignorance have destroyed it in this country.

Science is rational, "global warming" is a religion. It has all the stigmata.

Yes: Galileo, Newton, Babbage. All ignorant men who fought against science...

I meant modern creationists. They didn't know about evolution back then.

Charles Babbage lived 12 years after Darwin published Origin of Species.

You seem to be claiming that every genius would believe in the <cough cough> theory <cough cough> of evolution (which is really not that comparable to the theory of gravity, BTW) if they were told about it.

Darwin himself was disturbed by his findings, Babbage could also have been skeptical, or he could have never even heard of it.

Well, looks like I was wrong about one thing.

What are the best evidences for evolution?

And lots of others.

Large planetary events like astroids cause ice ages, and we're still coming out of one. Unless you think the ice glacier covering North America melted because of evil humans driving ice cars lol

I saw a meme: "Take you facts and logic and shove them up your a**.”

Lol, when I was in college, I took a history of psychology class. After learning all of insane things that people have believed through history, I asked, are you going to tell me that everything we believe now is true? And that was pretty much the conclusion of it.

Exactly who is rejecting science?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5ugOaelSYM