Aliens, is there a cover-up?

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I was thinking largely of Ptolemy's geocentric model.

That's a perfect example of what I was saying. It was the best information available at the time. Very different thing than "the truth". You have to look at the information that goes into the formation of a hypothosis. Then you have to see if observation bears it out and if it is accurate in it's ability to predict future events.

Of course, it's also ancient. What's wonderful about living today is that there is so much information available it leads to so far more accurate conclusions. We, indeed, have come a long way in the last 2,000 years. Copernicus and Kepler really ushered in the modern age of science. Before that "science" was really as much superstition and religion as science.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by noonereal

clearly what "makes sense" now might not "make sense" when more is discovered

See, there's more to it than this. This kind of language doesn't accurately represent the state of science as it exists today. It's also language often used by people with an agenda to suggest that nothing can ever be known. This is simply not true. Sure, there are things that can come to light and further shape an understanding that was previously held. But many things are reasonably well settled.

It's simply not accurate to put all scientific understanding in one big pot and say "well, since they haven't figured out sting theory, nothing can be known." Certainly people working on the ragged edge of human understanding are working in an area where new discoveries are constantly shaping their theories. But to suggest that somehow we'll discover something that radically changes our understanding of basic science is misleading.

This is a tactic currently being used to discredit the observations and understanding of climate change, or Darwinian evolution. It's just not a logical argument. It's a misunderstanding put forth by people who don't like what the scientific observation shows.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Common beliefs are often wrong and nowadays we look to scientists as somewhat infallable.

I completely disagree. The religious right has waged war on science. Hardly infallible, they've been inaccurately discredited. Shit, there's a museum in Kentucky with cave man kids riding dinosaurs. This isn't a matter of exploring alternate interpretations consistent with what we know. This if pure fiction designed to suggest that the scientific community is incredible (as in "not credible") in an effort to support a belief that is not supported by evidence.

We have in many was abandon science while the rest of the world has moved forward. It will be part of the unraveling of America.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

See, there's more to it than this. This kind of language doesn't accurately represent the state of science as it exists today. It's also language often used by people with an agenda to suggest that nothing can ever be known. This is simply not true. Sure, there are things that can come to light and further shape an understanding that was previously held. But many things are reasonably well settled.

It's simply not accurate to put all scientific understanding in one big pot and say "well, since they haven't figured out sting theory, nothing can be known." Certainly people working on the ragged edge of human understanding are working in an area where new discoveries are constantly shaping their theories. But to suggest that somehow we'll discover something that radically changes our understanding of basic science is misleading.

This is a tactic currently being used to discredit the observations and understanding of climate change, or Darwinian evolution. It's just not a logical argument. It's a misunderstanding put forth by people who don't like what the scientific observation shows.

i think you are over reaching, by allot

string even tells us that everything is possible which suggests that nothing is absolute

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

The religious right has waged war on science. America.

that's a big 10 4

[BlueStreak]

Man, you guys are sharp.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

That's a perfect example of what I was saying. It was the best information available at the time. Very different thing than "the truth". You have to look at the information that goes into the formation of a hypothosis. Then you have to see if observation bears it out and if it is accurate in it's ability to predict future events.

Of course, it's also ancient. What's wonderful about living today is that there is so much information available it leads to so far more accurate conclusions. We, indeed, have come a long way in the last 2,000 years. Copernicus and Kepler really ushered in the modern age of science. Before that "science" was really as much superstition and religion as science.

We are in more agreement than it may appear. But the problem is folks take theory as fact.

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I completely disagree. The religious right has waged war on science. Hardly infallible, they've been inaccurately discredited. Shit, there's a museum in Kentucky with cave man kids riding dinosaurs. This isn't a matter of exploring alternate interpretations consistent with what we know. This if pure fiction designed to suggest that the scientific community is incredible (as in "not credible") in an effort to support a belief that is not supported by evidence.

We have in many was abandon science while the rest of the world has moved forward. It will be part of the unraveling of America.

See?

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

We are in more agreement than it may appear. But the problem is folks take theory as fact.

A bigger problem is people don't know what "theory" means with regard to science. The words "theory" and "fact" probably don't even belong in the same context. Science would prefer "law", I think, to "fact". However, that's not to understate the validity of a scientific "theory". If a theory is not consistent with observation, then it is not a scientific theory. There is a bar that has to be met in order for a hypothesis to be called a theory. I can say "it's my theory that the moon is actually made of cheese." While in colloquial speech that may be grammatically correct, it is *not* a scientific theory. We have made observations that are in direct conflict with that hypothesis.

People exploit this confusion in terms to promote an agenda. It's popular to say "that's just a theory" when talking about science that an indifidual doesn't much like. To which it is popular to respond "so is gravity- so why don't you jump off a roof".

[piece-itpete]

Used to be, in order to be legitimate a theory had to be provable, there had to be a way to prove it. That a force we call gravity exists is easily provable by even a child. The theory part is 'how'.

Common culture takes theories as fact on a regular basis.

And a 'fact', my dad used to say, a fact is something that always has been true, is currently true, and always will be true, so there is no such thing as a fact because we don't know the future

Pete

[GWAR]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c3d_1215291532

Not to be taken as gospel, but something to think about, nontheless.
And I will be the first to admit that Im a card carrying skeptic, and will tell you I believe in one thing only, and thats the dirt beneath my feet at any given time, but I once saw something along with two other people, that I cant explain to myself, let alone explain it to someone else.
Is there a coverup? Most likely, but what I dont understand is how they think that we would all go crazy if we found out that we are the only ones here. I meen really, get over yourself, FFS