Replies

"Again... Science is infallible - until it’s not."

~~~~~~~~~~

That is one of the more dumb@$$3d statements I've encountered on FR -- and that is quite an achievement!

It so happens that tomorrow, I complete my 80th orbit around our local star -- and as a physical scientist, I will testify that NEVER have I encountered a genuine scientist who claimed that "Science is infallible".

Nothing pleases a scientist more than to develop a better experiment or better measurement or observation to supplant and improvethe current state of knowledge. In fact, that is precisely why we do what we do. And those of us who are also are believers in Divine Creation also rejoice each time a new discovery unveils a bit more of the majesty of our Creator's magnificent design.

Bottom line: your statement is that of an ignorant dogmatist. And it disrespects both our Creator -- and those who honestly strive to ever-better understand Him and his infinitely-elegant work of creation.

Congratulations! You've put yourself in the same mental subclass as the Gorebull Wahrumists -- who claim "the science is settled"! '-)

Have a blessed day!

“Again... Science is infallible - until it’s not.”

I am not to sure that the original poster was wrong.

When you have jacklegs like Sagan and Tyson, or, real scientist Eddington and even Einstein, saying that they are right because “Science!” without giving proof, it makes you wonder. I certainly get the feeling that Sagan felt and Tyson feels that Science is infallible.

(For clarity, Eddington was the guy who told Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Chandra) that white dwarf stars couldn’t exist because he didn’t like the connotations of compressed matter. Einstein added the “cosmological constant” to General Relativity because he didn’t like the idea of an ever expanding Universe. Both ideas were wrong)

Dear FRiend in Texas,
Please forgive me for excluding the /s in my comment. I made the mistaken assumption that my sarcasm was evident without the redundancy of a sarcasm tag.

Forgive my continuing ignorance, but do scientists such as yourself acknowledge logic & reasoning? You managed to cram more Ad Hominem attacks into your post than I've encountered on FR - and that is quite an achievement considering I de-lurked here at FR a mere 19 days before you (I lived in NH at the time - so you can be sure that Drumbo knows Massholes).

Trollish personal attacks don't usually provoke a response from me, but I take considerable offense that you accuse my levity of disrespecting our Creator. That insult is intolerable as I said nothing about The Creator and again I point to the fallacy in your logic (e.g. an off-topic red herring). I admit that I disrespect the bumper crop of junk science "consensus" with it's long history of revisionism, but as a knuckle-dragging neanderthal (or is it Piltdown? -- I get those two mixed up), perhaps I should leave off comments on threads where big brains and and superior intellects take ignorant dogmatists such as myself to the woodshed of name-calling and insults.

When Stephen Hawking (whom afaik is a "genuine scientist") states with "100% certainty" that "God does not exist", I assume he is exercising his infallible elitist scientificness (after all, "100% certainty" doesn't leave much wiggle room, but I could be wrong as Mr. Hawking has been in the past when he reverses himself). The "Gorebull Wahrumists" of the settled science club you mentioned and the 40-year scientific consensus on Piltdown Man before it was found to be a hoax, were exactly the kind of junk science I was referring to in my cynical post. I sense we are on the same side, but you need to find a sense of humor. After accusing me of "disrespecting our Creator", wishing me "a blessed day" seems hypocritical, but of course ymmv.