Well... I'm out! I only wanted to give my $0.02 and ended up spending a lot more than planned. Lol.
pontiacgp said:
....it's not often I have science on my side...
Science, pontiacgp, is not a solid foundation to stand on, by the way....
Remember when people who thought the earth was round (aka spherical) were persecuted? Or that science about the earth being the center of the universe? Or when people insisted "640 Kb or RAM is more than you'll ever need"? These things were based on your "science".
Man is no smarter than the caveman days, when we rubbed two sticks together and got fire. We LABELLED it. Called it "fire". Big deal.
We label things, and proclaim it to be "science". So what.
What is gravity. A label. Why is pulling on a mass? What exactly is the science BEHIND the so called "Universal Law of Gravitation" which states that there is a force of attraction between all masses in the universe, which is inversly proportional to the square of the distance between them? In layman's terms, the bigger and closer, the greater the force of gravity. My question is, WHY? HOW?
There are a lot of things science cannot answer. All it does, essentially, is label things. And for all it's glory, it's often wrong.
Wikipedia: Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment.
Lemme break it down for you:
Flat Earth hypothesis. Although not a truly scientific theory, it was proved wrong by many scientific observations over a period of thousands of years, with evidence compiling and culminating in Apollo 11's images of a spherical Earth.
Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.
Geocentric theory of the solar system. Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.
The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)
Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).
Science, my friends, is not all it's cracked up to be. You might wanna stop persecuting the guy who disagrees with science and says the earth is round.
You're the one persecuting that guy. Because, you may have over looked something, and he may just be right. Open your mind to that possibility.
