Is it testable? that is the main question. Science is just knowledge and predictions acquired using the scientific method. A key component of the method is the testability.Dude you got me. I have no idea what science is. Ghosthunting and UFOology can be pursued as sciences also and they are all equally valid to people like you that know what science is. Good to know.
I'm not trying to defend religion here, but that's a fairly flawed statement there. At the time he was wondering about alchemy, how the hell did he know it was false? Everyone "knew" all sorts of shit back then that someone questioned, and found out we didn't really know at all. That's the basis of science, in my opinion, the asking of questions. Hell, if someone want's to "prove" crazy shit exists that we "know" is false, why not? Maybe they'll turn out to be right and we'll have had another monumental breakthrough like gravity, light, etc.Masturbation doesn't disagree with any science. Alchemy, other beliefs in pseudoscience and religion directly interfere with your ability to do science because they make claims about the world that we know are false.
How exactly is it flawed to say that believing in pseudoscience, that is things that have no scientific background, forces you to go into any test with flawed premises? Another issue with trying to "prove" crazy shit is that not all claims have the same probability of being true. Would you be fine if the government started funding ghosthunters on the premise that hey, maybe it is true?I'm not trying to defend religion here, but that's a fairly flawed statement there.
To be fair, you're making a testable hypothesis, which is the start of good science. I would much rather this than blind faith = the end. Alchemy was the father of chemistry. Without the observations made in alchemy, modern chemistry wouldn't exist. It was Newton's contemporary Boyle who pretty much invented the whole testing part of the scientific method, to be sure that people weren't wasting their time. They understood that, even though they couldn't see it, everything consisted of atoms, and were exploring that - I see no problem there. Unfortunately, dementia was pretty common to alchemists back then. Who would have thunk lead and mercury could have detrimental effects?Now I grant you that Newton had MUCH less reason to doubt the validity of alchemy at the time, yet certainly his spending time on it was a waste.
Even if we allow for whatever this statement means, remember that I'm talking about the part where he impliedourUniverse was in a black hole.Iannas has the right of it. encapsulated makes no sense in a universe where our physics don't apply.
From this coming Sunday's Cosmos.The little known but heroic story of a guy from Iowa that can't really be told without going all the way back to the time long before the Earth was formed - to the origin of the elements in the hearts of stars. The tempestuous youth of the Earth effectively erased all traces of its beginnings. How did we ever learn its true age?
Mac does.The history of science is the history of erroneous statements. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand what science is.
There is no way of knowing. So we are left with the facts. Newton was a religious zealot and a brilliant scientist. If he and others could do it, I'm sure it can be done again. Don't get me wrong, I'm as atheist as they come, but historical evidence shows that religion, at the individual level does not hamper science. Think of it as this. Great minds and curious minds are driven to find out how how things work, regardless of the religion they practice.You're picking some fairly obvious and extreme examples to prove your point, but you knew what I was getting at. We probably both agree in general that some things should be obvious as "a waste of time" to most people, but a lot of it is a matter of perspective. You're making wide generalizations when it isn't always so clear cut. Alchemy in his time is a good example, whereas something today might not be obvious until hundreds of years from now that it was a waste of time.
That's not even counting the part where you said him spending time on alchemy was certainly a waste. How can you know? What if the methods and procedures and thought processes that he used in failing to prove alchemy helped him later in his other discoveries? What if he never would have made the breakthroughs he did if he hadn't spent years analyzing the bible for hidden messages?
We can't know the answer to any what ifs, and I'm clearly just picking semantics and nitpicks to argue with you, because like I said we both agree in general that a ton of shit is a waste of time. But it bugs me when someone makes blanket statements like that when there is clearly no way to know either.
That is of course the strength of science, that it is constantly correcting itself when new evidence is discovered and contradictions to current understandings are found.The history of science is the history of erroneous statements. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand what science is.
Which means we would only know what physical laws exist within a black hole and would have no concept of physical laws outside of oneEven if we allow for whatever this statement means, remember that I'm talking about the part where he impliedourUniverse was in a black hole.
He lapped himself a few days ago.Lendarios has gone full retard
No one is saying that. They're saying that even though Newton was brilliant, religion held him back. He could have done even more. Religion is the reason that some things he thought of didn't become pursuits because he thought "yea it's god. Problem solved."Me? I'm not the one claiming if newton wouldn't been x he would have been y, that is full retard.
Science exists on the frontier of knowledge and ignorance. The history of this frontier being pushed out is fascinating, especially for those currently on this frontier. Science history isn't about making erroneous statements, it's about making true statements that correct erroneous thinking.The history of science is the history of erroneous statements. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand what science is.