Star Trek

theories are against science and everything that it stands for. if you believe in theory you are against science.

Not saying anything... Not saying anything... Not saying anything.....

you just did.

Wasn’t theories what made sciecne in the first place? I mean if it werent for scientist theorizing of how things works...testing there theories and then proving them (or disproving them) then were would science be? Isn’t that how they got alot of thier answers...Without theories how do you get the results?

> theories are against science and everything that it
> stands for. if you believe in theory you are against
> science.

Sounds like bullsh!t to me.

No they wasn’t.

is that a theory? you’re full of theories aren’t you?

So what you’re saying is that scientists are limited to classifying things, making chemical reactions, and doing math. We should never even try to hypothesize exactly WHY things happen. Without theories, sciences like physics, astronomy, and even a good deal of medicine (could it be that doctors make educated guesses when they diagnose many patients?) should be gotten rid of.

You do realize that the scientific method, which has worked pretty well for us, accepts the formation of theories don’t you? After a scientist gathers the results of his experiment, he submits the findings to his peers who will work to disprove it. There is no way for most scientists to prove that their theories are 100% accurate (just look at the ratio of scientific theories to scientific laws), but if the data is upheld when the experiment is retried dozens of times then the theory is considered to be reliable. After a time, a theory might be proven false, then we look at the data the disproved the theory and form a new one. That’s called reasoning.

What you’re saying is that we should scrap most of the knowledge gained through our history and also to not bother to make any advances until the results can be made into scientific law. I suppose that we should throw out logic also, inductive thought has no place in q1 land. And once we make these laws, they should never be questioned because they will always be correct no matter what the circumstances even if they end up being false (ever consider that the laws of thermodynamics have themselves been broken?). Why not just throw out all science altogether? That would be simpler.

Or, we could do things the right way and say that theories are not just a part of science, they ARE science. I guess that since you are against theories then you are against science. In fact, according to my theory, the fact that you consider theories to be unscientific is in fact a theory unto itself. Care to theorise how I’m wrong?

"You do realize that the scientific method, which has worked pretty well for us, accepts the formation of theories don’t you?"

Obviously I’m saying that’s not the case.


"Without theories, sciences like physics, astronomy, and even a good deal of medicine (could it be that doctors make educated guesses when they diagnose many patients?) should be gotten rid of."

You obviously don’t understand the argument.


"What you’re saying is that we should scrap most of the knowledge gained through our history and also to not bother to make any advances until the results can be made into scientific law."

Are you calling theory knowledge? Well then what is it that exactly that’s being scrapped?


"I suppose that we should throw out logic also, inductive thought has no place in q1 land."

You obviously just think you’re being logical in your theoryland.


"And once we make these laws, they should never be questioned because they will always be correct no matter what the circumstances even if they end up being false (ever consider that the laws of thermodynamics have themselves been broken?)."

Obviously you and whoever named these so called laws don’t know the meaning of the word.


"Why not just throw out all science altogether? That would be simpler."

You have thrown out all science. What you’re talking about is not science, as I’ve said before. That would be simpler than what?


"Or, we could do things the right way and say that theories are not just a part of science, they ARE science."

What you’re talking about is your own opinion which is false.


"I guess that since you are against theories then you are against science."

How’s that? What makes you think that’s a fact?


"In fact, according to my theory, the fact that you consider theories to be unscientific is in fact a theory unto itself. Care to theorise how I’m wrong?"

You’re making that claim, why don’t YOU prove that you’re right.

what’s wrong, run out of theories?

BECAUSE YOU DON’T GIVE AN ARGUMENT!!!
How can you expect people to respect your claim without backup!
I could come into a room and say, "Canaries are the work of the devil!"
Someone asks, "What makes you say that?"
All I can do is stumble around repeating myself and being clever using a ’v’ instead of a ’u’ in the ’f’ word.

"BECAUSE YOU DON’T GIVE AN ARGUMENT!!!" "All I can do is stumble around repeating myself and being clever using a ’v’ instead of a ’u’ in the ’f’ word."

Huh, what are you talking about gul-pip?


"How can you expect people to respect your claim without backup!"

Maybe for the same reason that you don’t respect your own claims? You think it’s wrong just because there’s no evidence demonstrated for it. How foolish and pompous can you be?

Besides, I’m not really interested in this topic that much right now so I won’t talk about it for now.

Well inductive experimentation is a valid scientific method which has its uses but it doesn’t define science. It’s just one method. Get that through your head.

And again theory has nothing to do with induction. Induction is a method of reasoning that leads to a actual fact. Theory is just theory. Nonesense.