The Problem with Science as a Substitute

[nereas]

I'd like to hear about these assumptions you are talking about nearas?

Princess if you're interested in college chemistry then there must be more than a few local colleges in Oz where you could enroll.

And if you never get around to it, then in the meantime just remember this: don't make science your religion.

If you truly can live without religion, then that would include substitute-religions as well, such as science in place of religion, superstitions, numerology, horoscopes, etc.

Philosophy would be worth your while as well. The earliest Greek philosophers also tried to be atheist. For some reason, a pantheon of dozens and scores of gods and goddesses did not ring true to their intellectual minds. Herodotus even mentions this, as well as stating that the origin of the Greek gods was the Egyptian gods.

You are very sweet, and I do not mean to patronize you. It is just that I did not spend my life to become a chem professor. It does not pay as well. Anything under Euro 200K/yr does not interest me much as a career. Call me greedy, but as I am sure you know, everyone has their price, in life.

 

[adurso]

I think this thread should be closed.

Goodness no! This is some of the funniest stuff I have seen in quite a while. Pseudophilosophy is fascinating.

 

[Sas]

Princess if you're interested in college chemistry then there must be more than a few local colleges in Oz where you could enroll.

And if you never get around to it, then in the meantime just remember this: don't make science your religion.

If you truly can live without religion, then that would include substitute-religions as well, such as science in place of religion, superstitions, numerology, horoscopes, etc.

Philosophy would be worth your while as well. The earliest Greek philosophers also tried to be atheist. For some reason, a pantheon of dozens and scores of gods and goddesses did not ring true to their intellectual minds. Herodotus even mentions this, as well as stating that the origin of the Greek gods was the Egyptian gods.

You are very sweet, and I do not mean to patronize you. It is just that I did not spend my life to become a chem professor. It does not pay as well. Anything under Euro 200K/yr does not interest me much as a career. Call me greedy, but as I am sure you know, everyone has their price, in life.

"Princess?"

I know about chemistry. I am just not sure that you do as you haven't actually said anything about it other than to criticise it so I was inviting you to explain the reasoning behind your criticism. Still waiting...

Also how am I making science my religion? I don't know if this is a concept you can really grasp given your posting here: I do not need a religion, therefore I do not need a substitute for religion. Why are you finding that difficult to grasp? We are not all homogeneous nearas, so we don't all require the same things to get through life.

 

[Thalassamania]

Close it, it rambles endless without the OP ever making a rational point.

 

[Tassie_Rohan]

Then I am surprised that you have forgotten all about the inherent assumptions of carbon dating, because any college curriculum in advanced chemistry is going to hammer on that, and its on the final exam as well.

Maybe you are just getting old? And your memory is gone, dear old friend??

I'm curious - why are you, and other religious types, so fixated on radiocarbon dating? As someone with a chemistry background I would have thought you would be aware that carbon dating is only really used for relatively recent stuff - the last 50,000 years or so. BTW - the only assumption is that the laws of physics were the same then as they are now.

People such as myself who deal with a geological time scale use a whole host of radiometric methods - K/K, K/Ar, Pb/U, Rb/Sr, etc, which have been tested against each other and other age dating methods and found to be highly accurate.

Is there some tacky little pamphlet on carbon dating floating around that I haven't read?

So what about these other methods - if you can find something wrong with them you would become the most famous scientist overnight: scientists love disproving someone else’s research or method.


Cheers,
Rohan.

 

[shoredivr]

Princess....
You are very sweet, and I do not mean to patronize you.

Nereas fails miserably (on purpose) again.

Close it.

 

[adurso]

I am forced to hazard a guess that those of you requesting a closure are not fans of observing self destruction? I seem to obtain a perverse thrill from the downward spiral of self aggrandizing dinoflaggelates.

 

[shoredivr]

I am forced to hazard a guess that those of you requesting a closure are not fans of observing self destruction? I seem to obtain a perverse thrill from the downward spiral of self aggrandizing dinoflaggelates.

Ok, then, move it into the Pub.

I've lost track of how many times he's insulted, demeaned, twisted the meanings of, been obtuse and vaguely threatening ("Shoo, scat,...) etc.

At this rate, the Pub's the only place for this pile of meandering compost.

 

[nereas]

I'm curious - why are you, and other religious types, so fixated on radiocarbon dating? As someone with a chemistry background I would have thought you would be aware that carbon dating is only really used for relatively recent stuff - the last 50,000 years or so. BTW - the only assumption is that the laws of physics were the same then as they are now.

People such as myself who deal with a geological time scale use a whole host of radiometric methods - K/K, K/Ar, Pb/U, Rb/Sr, etc, which have been tested against each other and other age dating methods and found to be highly accurate.

Is there some tacky little pamphlet on carbon dating floating around that I haven't read?

So what about these other methods - if you can find something wrong with them you would become the most famous scientist overnight: scientists love disproving someone else’s research or method.


Cheers,
Rohan.

Your logic fallacy is called "confirming the subsequent," popularly known as begging the question.

All the methods that you mention are based upon the same inherent underlying assumptions.

If you slept through the "underlying assumptions" lecture of your chem Ph.D. curriculum, then you are simply in the same boat as Thal, who worships science, and pays no attention to its limitations.

This is precisely the fallacy of making science your substitute for religion. And treating it precisely as a religion, infallible, infinite, perfect and complete.

Go through your chem books and look it up the limitations and assumptions of carbon dating methods, and if you are smart, then you can find it on your own. ["Only the laws of physics," what a neophyte joke! If I saw that on a chem test, I would give you an F for that answer.]

Cheers & G'day mate.

 

[nereas]

Nereas fails miserably (on purpose) again.

Close it.

She [Saspotato] is very sweet, and more than you.

And I am not her chem professor. Nor do I want to be.