The Zeitgeist Movement

"

Derp.

That's why nobody gives a shit about a "scientific finding" unless it's published in a peer reviewed journal

Well try looking up regulatory agencies that create, publish, and review their own scientifc studies. This has a direct impact on Americans as these regulatory agencies can create, pass, and enforce their own laws. So i disagree that some people do in fact give a shit.

DERP

Also, to get published in those scientific journals one has to agree (more or less) with whatever conclusions the reviewers have in mind. So, for example, a leading biochemist recently wrote a paper about Intelligent Design (ID is not the same as Creationism). Basically, he found it highly probable that the individual cells of which all biological life is constituted, most likely were designed by a higher intelligence (in this case, he assumed aliens). However, his paper was not even reviewed for many journals, simply because it disagreed with the doctrine of Darwinism.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

simply because it disagreed with the doctrine of Darwinism.

I'd like to see proof that this isn't just your opinion.

The case I mentioned specifically had to do with a professor I knew when I was at school for my masters. Not sure what came of it ultimatley, but I spoke to him at some length about the topic at the time. he told me that getting published/grants is based off a system that encourages agreement with certain scientific doctrines (he went as far as to compare it to a patronage system of sorts). For example, you can propose and recieve grants to reasearch the possibility that some of Darwins theories need to be ammended. However, going and trying to get a grant for, say, intelligent design theory or some other "fringe" idea is very hard.

Now, there are two very good answers for this.

1. Most people don't see credibillity in intelligent design theory. Or, are afraid of it morphing into creatonism.

2. There is only so much money to go around, and the allocation of those funds are primarily sent to fund research that seems most likely to succeed.

Still, even with those answers in place, we shouldn't view the scientific community as a large group of open minded - consider any theory - kind of people. That just isn't the case.

Darwinism has had enough money and time thrown at it with little to no evidence to change it from theory to fact. I say start looking at some new options!

Of course, the world will ridicule anyone with a different idea until eventually someone with enough guts, intelligence, and funding provides evidence that states otherwise, and finally the new theory will be accepted as fact.

Kind of like the world being flat/round argument.

"

FruitLord wrote:

Darwinism has had enough money and time thrown at it with little to no evidence to change it from theory to fact. I say start looking at some new options!

Of course, the world will ridicule anyone with a different idea until eventually someone with enough guts, intelligence, and funding provides evidence that states otherwise, and finally the new theory will be accepted as fact.

Kind of like the world being flat/round argument.

lol proof that nobody on this forum understands science obviously.

A scientific theory is a fact, you dolt.

A scientific theory is not a fact. To suggest that is absurd. A fact is a proposition that represents a true state of affairs. For example:

"Peter was born April 5th, 1986 at 3am."

-or-

"A square has four sides, the angles of which equal 90 degrees"

A scientific theory is not a fact (although a scientific theory is certainly supported by facts). If all theories were facts, then no theory could ever be amended in the future. You cannot change facts, you can change theories. Thus, they are not the same thing.

Further if all theories are facts, then when we have conflicting theories we have conflicting facts. Facts cannot conflict. It cannot both be raining and not raining at the same time, the world cannot be both flat and round at the same time, the dinosaurs cannot exist and not exist with man at the same time.

Technically the world is neither completely flat or completely round. The earth is an oblong spheroid meaning it bulges at the equator and is thinner by the poles. Being a scientific theory this allowed it to be changed. A scientific theory is not absolute, but you don't see me going around saying the theory of gravity is just a "theory"

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

A scientific theory is not a fact. To suggest that is absurd. A fact is a proposition that represents a true state of affairs. For example:

"Peter was born April 5th, 1986 at 3am."

-or-

"A square has four sides, the angles of which equal 90 degrees"

A scientific theory is not a fact (although a scientific theory is certainly supported by facts). If all theories were facts, then no theory could ever be amended in the future. You cannot change facts, you can change theories. Thus, they are not the same thing.

Further if all theories are facts, then when we have conflicting theories we have conflicting facts. Facts cannot conflict. It cannot both be raining and not raining at the same time, the world cannot be both flat and round at the same time, the dinosaurs cannot exist and not exist with man at the same time.

Did you get your education in a Texas public school?

Learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory and when you learn that you can get back to pretending that you know what you're talking about. (Creationism(man co-existed with dinosaurs) isn't a scientific theory)

Pretty sure he was using that as an example. How about instead of subtracting from the discussion add something to it. You keep complaining about people not knowing scientific concepts and I'm starting to wonder where you got your education.