Customer Discussions > Science forum

Is science the new religion?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 501-518 of 518 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 3:24:55 PM PST
why would Amazon reject this?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 5:53:32 PM PST
barbW says:
What shouldn't I post?

Behave as if you were a guest at a friend's dinner party. Please treat the Amazon.com community with respect. Do not post:

Profane or obscene, inflammatory or spiteful comments
Messages that abuse, denigrate or threaten others
Text or articles written by someone else, even with attribution for the author, except for brief quotations from a book, article or other product related to the discussion
Any personal information about children under 13
Descriptions that intrude on the privacy of another person, including revealing personally identifiable information such as their name or address
Text that promotes illegal or immoral conduct
Repeated posts that make the same point excessively
Repeated unwelcome messages that harass or embarrass other customers or participants
Repeated posts that promote an item in the Amazon.com catalog
Any form of "spam," including advertisements, contests, or other solicitations for other websites or companies; or any URL link that includes a "referrer" tag or affiliate code.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 6:08:48 PM PST
Doesn't help at all in this instance.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 6:56:57 PM PST
noman says:
RE: "ABOTA says:
Have I *offended* you to suggest that people apply religious attitudes to science?"

**Nope. Don't care what you suggest. You're not publishing in my field and you're not on the grant committee.

RE:"...I can see how you might be offended that the Holy Institute of Science would be so desecrated by such Heretics. But to deny such the existence of such Heresy."

**her·e·sy   [her-uh-see]
noun, plural -sies.
1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church . the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

**Actually, being at variance with established belief or theory is how you get ahead in science. See Quasicrystals, Daniel Shechtman and Nobel Prize. Your problem is not that you are heretical, it's simply that you don't understand science and how it works. Your other problem is that, other than a few bored people on Amazon, no one really cares what you think. ~_+

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 8:30:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 8, 2012 4:19:59 AM PST
barbW says:
my husband wrote that

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 9:50:57 PM PST
ABOTA says:
"Actually, being at variance with established belief or theory is how you get ahead in science."

My point exactly.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 9:51:56 PM PST
ABOTA says:
"Your problem is not that you are heretical, it's simply that you don't understand science and how it works."

That's just funny.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 10:36:34 PM PST
noman says:
RE: "ABOTA says:
"Actually, being at variance with established belief or theory is how you get ahead in science."

My point exactly. "

**Then you should have said so.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 10:44:14 PM PST
noman says:
RE: "ABOTA says:
"Your problem is not that you are heretical, it's simply that you don't understand science and how it works."

That's just funny. "

**Reading your posts, I think the following from "True Believer" by Eric Hoffer describes you perfectly:

"The effectiveness of a doctrine does not come from its meaning but from its certitude. No doctrine however profound and sublime will be effective unless it is presented as the embodiment of the one and only truth. It must be the one word from which all things are and all things speak. (p. 80)

It is obvious, therefore, that in order to be effective, a doctrine must not be understood, but has rather to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. (p. 80-81)

If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine. (p. 81)"

And, Ignore. ~_+

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 6:07:57 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 8, 2012 6:09:15 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
That seems pretty accurate. Perhaps ABOTA is one of those "philosophers of science" who have a blindingly hateful envy of real scientists. Many are quite jealous of the respect and esteem science enjoys and are determined to tear it down by any means necessary.

Or maybe he's just a religious nut trying to pose as a Deep Thinker. Either way, it's much, much easier than doing ACTUAL science, which requires some intelligence.

Posted on Mar 8, 2012 8:13:24 AM PST
ABOTA says:
I see that the battle has been won by those cleverly resorting to the time-honoured technique of ad hominem.
Your reply to ABOTA's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 8:48:55 AM PST
Don Jennings says:
//ABOTA says:
I see that the battle has been won by those cleverly resorting to the time-honoured technique of ad hominem. //

One of the hypotheses above has been rendered doubtful since it is unlikely that a "philosopher of science" would be so untutored as to the meaning of "ad hominem." No one dismissed your argument (such as it is) because of an accusation of you personally. People merely pointed out that you display an ignorance of science. This is true and it addresses the exact claims you have made so it is not "ad hominem."

Don't you think it is asking a lot to expect people to ignore your lack of knowledge about that which you denigrate?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 9:07:12 AM PST
Rev. Otter says:
<<the battle>>

wait. what battle?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 9, 2012 6:10:28 AM PST
Re Lisareads, 3-6 5:01 PM: "The U.S. corporation is only responsible to international contract law." Nonsense: corporations are ultimately responsible to their customers.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 9, 2012 11:00:10 AM PST
Lisareads says:
"Nonsense: corporations are ultimately responsible to their customers. "
=====================================
Stop buying gas and all products that use gas to get to you.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 4:50:04 PM PST
Marcos says:
Christine,

Wrong. You forgot about bees, and yes I know about Cape Bees which I am specifically excluding.

Unfertilized female bees will give birth to males.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 7:16:48 PM PST
Not really, as i was talking about vertebrates. But you're right about bees, of course. What happens in naked mole rats??

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 10:24:24 PM PST
Marcos says:
Christine,

Fair enough, I forgot to read the fine print. In any case bees give us the blueprint for having a male child born of an unfertilized female.

As far as vertebrates, Turkeys. But their sex cells are different from those of mammals.

As far as the naked mole rats, I have never heard they reproduce asexually.
‹ Previous 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  51
Total posts:  518
Initial post:  Feb 14, 2012
Latest post:  Mar 10, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions