- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4277
Science is best supported by? Scientology? No, scientists.
Science is best supported by scientists, through measurement. In the art and science of measurement, repeatability and reproducibility are fundamental aspects of scientific research. These concepts are designed to ensure the validity and reliability of scientific findings. However, all measurements need to be measured to a standard, to be deemed accurate to a certain extent. The standard, a calibration tool used to assure the instruments ability to produce accuracy is imperative. A standard has to be somewhere from 4 to 10 times more accurate than the instrument performing the measurements to be a reliable standard.
The problem with the science of science is that man is the measure of all things classified as being scientific. Right from the top of my head, the first thing that comes to mind is to ask where can we find a standard to measure man, since man has made himself the measure of all things?
Who on the list can measure the size of universe, before and after coming into view? Who on the list can measure eternity? Where can we possibly find an appropriate, accurately calibrated standard, to assure the instrumentation which are utilized in the measurements of such fantastical sized dimensions? And how can the fundamental mandatory repeatability and reproducibility be performed, to assert the scientific findings, should they be found, fundamentally?
KellyJay is probably intending to lure the non believers into his spider's web, where the web is the certainty of the Bible he swears by. He intends to measure the measurements of science by making the bible his standard.
No doubt as an attempted retaliation for the dinosaurs' bones. But more so for all the recent wisecracks on Noah's Ark, and the Tree of Life. KellyJay is trying to root out the ridiculous from science.
@pettytalk saidSimple question yet untouched even all the extra choices would have been included in the D answer but I suppose the need to disagree with me is so strong they feel the need to respond instead of ignoring a post they don’t care about. Yet they have to avoid any possible agreement with me of they can not use the choices offered. So they add several choices all of which again would have been covered in the D answer.
Science is best supported by? Scientology? No, scientists.
Science is best supported by scientists, through measurement. In the art and science of measurement, repeatability and reproducibility are fundamental aspects of scientific research. These concepts are designed to ensure the validity and reliability of scientific findings. However, all measurements need to be m ...[text shortened]... cks on Noah's Ark, and the Tree of Life. KellyJay is trying to root out the ridiculous from science.
@kellyjay saidD
A. Atheism
B. Theism
C. Poloytheism
D. None of the above science doesn't need/require any of them?
Science is about how the natural world works.
It is entirely possible to be a, b or c and still be a good scientist. The theistic stance is not relevant.
@kellyjay saidInstead of your limited list, why not simply ask “how is science best supported?”
A. Atheism
B. Theism
C. Poloytheism
D. None of the above science doesn't need/require any of them?
The replies would probably orient around:
- Funding and accountability
- Sound scientific processes
- Testing and peer reviews
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4277
@kellyjay saidWhere are going with this thread? What is that which Science is in need of support?
Simple question yet untouched even all the extra choices would have been included in the D answer but I suppose the need to disagree with me is so strong they feel the need to respond instead of ignoring a post they don’t care about. Yet they have to avoid any possible agreement with me of they can not use the choices offered. So they add several choices all of which again would have been covered in the D answer.
If you point out the need, perhaps a better list can be drafted with better choices in regards to the need.
@pettytalk saidIt is a free board so that anyone can ask or say anything, anyone can word their own posts anyway they like. Not trying to be rude but having self appointed hall monitors for my posts seems a bit over the top. Especially from ones who think a discussion is over after they state what they believe is true, then refusing to go over the details, so spout what they think, throw in an insult, and call it a day.
Where are going with this thread? What is that which Science is in need of support?
If you point out the need, perhaps a better list can be drafted with better choices in regards to the need.
@kellyjay saidI don't know quite how you conclude that people are disagreeing with you, since you have thus far offered no opinion yourself on the subject. Your item 'C' refers, I'm not sure what 'Poloytheism' is, perhaps the worship of mints with holes in? If you mean Polytheism, the worshiping of parrots I've never seen the point of, either.
Simple question yet untouched even all the extra choices would have been included in the D answer but I suppose the need to disagree with me is so strong they feel the need to respond instead of ignoring a post they don’t care about. Yet they have to avoid any possible agreement with me of they can not use the choices offered. So they add several choices all of which again would have been covered in the D answer.
@indonesia-phil saidI think the worship of parrots should be spelled "Pollytheism". Whereas "Poloytheism" would be the worship of games similar to that played on horseback with a long-handled mallet and once favoured by a certain monarch, Charles by name, before he became a monarch.
I don't know quite how you conclude that people are disagreeing with you, since you have thus far offered no opinion yourself on the subject. Your item 'C' refers, I'm not sure what 'Poloytheism' is, perhaps the worship of mints with holes in? If you mean Polytheism, the worshiping of parrots I've never seen the point of, either.
😀
@kellyjay saidSimple question yet untouched even all the extra choices would have been included in the D answer
Simple question yet untouched even all the extra choices would have been included in the D answer but I suppose the need to disagree with me is so strong they feel the need to respond instead of ignoring a post they don’t care about. Yet they have to avoid any possible agreement with me of they can not use the choices offered. So they add several choices all of which again would have been covered in the D answer.
Surely it's beneficial to the discussion to have fleshed out what is "covered by D", unless you have a certain motive to restrict the scope of the discussion?