Believe in science & ethics

last SG · 2007-08-17T14:02:49+00:00

The scope of science is very wide.It includes social sciences such as sociology,psychology and politics.

Daddy!! SG

Did i say we should not believe in Science? Dont put words in people's mouth.

All i said is our science is very limited and there is lots more to learn and explore. What we dont know, we should not discard as superstition.

Ships, airplanes physically disappeared mysteriously in the bermuda triangle. So should we discard them as superstition because our scientists are unable to explain it? Or should we explore and keep trying to understand these weird phenomena ?

Are you one of those who think our science is highly developed already so that it can explain most things and therefore those things which it cannot explain are bullsh.it superstition?

Daddy!! SG

Mass: you must be thinking that mass is so simple and you dont know meh. Everyone with a bit of education would say "Mass is the amount of matter a body has." You dont know meh. You so stupid until even mass also dont know meh.

The truth is that scientists are still struggling to fully understand what exactly is mass which is everywhere around us. if scientists cannot fully understand or explain what is mass which is so elementary to our lives and you discard things which scientists cannot explain as superstition, you would have discarded a lot of things or most things in nature.

Daddy!! SG

there are many billions of human beings who lived and died through human being's history. Why is it that no two human beings are 100% perfectly identical? Science cannot fully explain this weird phenomena, so you discard it as superstition. In your "discard as superstition whatever science cannot explain" proposition, we are all physically non-existence, but we do exist. Come and touch my hand, I am real.

Daddy!! SG

You love your parents and children. Love and affection is there, always there through the little things you do to your loved ones. But love can never be proven in science labs. So you discard love and affection as superstition. Even animals dont discard love for their offsprings and animals know love. So your proposition that "discard everything which science cannot prove as superstition' means you dont know love or believe in love, and that will make you less than an animal.

Daddy!! SG

light: there is no scientific proof to integrate and fully explain the hypothesis that light itself is a particle and a wave at the same time. but you will accept light as real because you can see it even when light is not fully understood or explained by scientists. why? because you can see it?

AndrewPKYap SG

What do you think the scientists doing basic research day in and day out, what do you think they are doing, if not trying to get scientific proof? Doing basic research and getting scientific proof is "dirty work"?

What an exceptionally stupid statement. With such an exceptionally stupid statement for openers, there is no need to read anything else you write.

Rolling Eyes

Laughing

Daddy!! SG

science, freedom of speech and democracy

in order to make discoveries and scientific progress, one must adopt an open and inquisitive mind. for instance, one would freely ask questions and dare to challenge the status quo. for example, albert einstein dared to challenge the status quo and proposed his own theories, he dared to imagine beyond the current widely accepted concepts. many of his theories were pure imaginations. in order to have this type of thinking mind, the environment would have to allow people to freely discuss issues and to freely challenge the status quo without fear of repercussions and also so that it becomes a second nature to the people. it is perhaps of this that the western democracies would always be able ahead in scientific inventions and knowledge.

the ability to imagine beyond what the current scientific concepts and at the same time ask questions freely is somewhat related to the culture of freedom of speech.

by going against freely imaginative minds, AA Yap has proven himself to be another autocratic person because he tries to restrict people from free imaginations. Soul_rage on the other hand is more democratic than AA Yap since he proposed one to be open in mind and thinking.

soul_rage SG

For the LAST TIME, PLEASE DO NOT practise extremism. Its VERY irritating to keep repeating my stance

1) I DO NOT doubt Science and its greatness
2) I just am telling you that if you don't think out of the box, you cannot discover new things.
3) If Einstein or Galileo or Stephen Hawkings were to behave like Andrew, its the end of Science as we know it, coz anything outside of what current Science knows now, are superstitions and delusions.
4) If Edison were to behave like Andrew, then he would not believe his idea and insisted on testing > 1000 times until he got the light bulb invented

The above are just examples of how people think out of the box (and be delusional like what Andrew said) and created the current technology that we have now.

Its very hard to knock sense into a pretender of Science, since he doesn't understand that for research to succeed, researchers must think beyond what we have now (which means these believers of future technology are delusional and stupid according to Mr Andrew's defn)

soul_rage SG

If you did not read, then you have no credibility anymore.

At least we make the effort to read your postings, no matter how ridiculous your postings, or rude and obnoxious your postings are.

Other than Rolling Eyes and Laughing , what else are you good in besides being as stubborn as a mule.

AndrewPKYap SG

Rolling Eyes Laughing

AndrewPKYap SG

*yawnz* So I see the two of you have decided to abandon your stupidity and come over to my side which is the side of "SCIENCE" and the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"?

Finally I am able to knock some sense into you.

Unfortunately, you are not there yet. Your posts continue to deserve Rolling Eyes Laughing

To be a scientific person IS to be a curious and think out of the box, to push at the frontiers, the edge of current knowledge.

What is the difference between "wild imaginings" and "scientific imagination"?

"Falsifiability " look it up.

and with these statements, you regress into stupidity.

Originally posted by soul_rage:
[b]3) If Einstein or Galileo or Stephen Hawkings were to behave like Andrew, its the end of Science as we know it, coz anything outside of what current Science knows now, are superstitions and delusions.

"4) If Edison were to behave like Andrew, then he would not believe his idea and insisted on testing > 1000 times until he got the light bulb invented"

Of course Edison tested "> 1000" times before he got the light bulb invented. What did you think? He invented it overnight? Rolling Eyes Laughing

The modern light bulb you use at home? It took more than simply ">1000" tests. More like ">1,000,000" tests done by numerous people over the years since Edison invented it.

You think Einstein developed his theory overnight? You think that is what Science and the Scientific Method works? You think that as long as you think of something that sounds good, you accept it? That is being delusional.

You think " Einstein or Galileo or Stephen Hawkings " behave like you? They make sure that they do not have delusions in their heads by testing testing and more testing or in Einstein's case, working out the mathematical model.

They do not accept anything just because they thought of it.

All I can say is it is gratifying to be able to convince you to come over to the side of Science and the Scientific Method.

Now take one more step. For everything you hear, "tests tests tests" and do more "tests tests tests" before you accept anything that people tell you whether it is religious, scientific or political.

If you do not have the resources to do the tests yourself, make sure that those people that try to tell you anything have done proper tests according to the Scientific Method and have their tests and conclusions reviewed by their peers.

Only then, when you have an imaginative mind AND demand proof and evidence, only then can you claim to be a scientific person and not a delusional. Laughing

The statements the government put out. The main press is government controlled. Therefore it "analyzes" government policies according to government point of views.

It does not tell you "the other side". It does not tell you the downsides of the policies. It tries to make everything looks good. Don't be fooled. As long as you live in a country that has a controlled press, do not believe anything they say no matter how convincing it sounds.

soul_rage SG

*yawns*

stop changing your stance.

You are just one sick joker who cannot decide what his stance is.

I have long stated my stance, you are the one that goes around shifting your stance whenever you are caught.

All the above are rubbish because our dear Andrew first started by saying all things not under Science are delusions and superstitions. People who think like Andrew cannot think out of the box, because the first assumption is already wrong.

Now he starts changing his tact, and says "oh... do enough research... imagination"

As an adult, you should be ashamed of yourself for not being able to stand up to scrutiny and admit your mistakes. You do not understand anything about Science and yet you keep insisting you know.

I guess for a posting to be at 2+am, you really are just a person without a life Laughing

Frankly, you are really pitiful. You remind me of people who cannot face up to their mistakes to improve themselves.

soul_rage SG

Scientific methods cannot apply to morals and ethics. Is Ethics a delusion?

Scientific methods cannot apply to love. Is love a delusion and superstition?

For those who say that Science is the holy grail (that to me is what Mr Andrew is shouting about), do you believe in spirits and Gods? Or you laugh off that religion is rubbish?

AndrewPKYap SG

Rolling Eyes you think people are too stupid like you and cannot simply go back to the previous posts and read for themselves what I wrote, what my stance was and what other delusional statements you made like this one, "Andrew first started by saying all things not under Science are delusions and superstitions"

and of course you believe (25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM don't need me to prove it. ) you do not need to back up this statement with proof and evidence.

That my friend, when you believe without proof and evidence ( don't need me to prove it ) you are having a delusion in your head.

What I said was, you need to have proof and evidence of something before you accept it or else it becomes a delusion and I did not say " all things not under Science are delusions and superstitions".

I also said that because all scientific claims come with proof and evidence before the claims are accepted by the scientific community, science is reliable and the scientific method is the superior way.

Nobody is as stupid as you as to accept delusional claims without proof and think that they 25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM don't need me to prove it. )

soul_rage SG

Just answer this Andrew, instead of beating ard the bush (again)

AndrewPKYap SG

Scientific findings, (because they come with proof and evidence) are reliable and people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics. They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions... Rolling Eyes

Only delusional (25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM don't need me to prove it) people like you will accept ethical and moral stance developed from delusions and illusions.

Read more about this in my book.

soul_rage SG

Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Scientific findings, (because they come with proof and evidence) are reliable and people must use the scientific method to develop their ethics. They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions...

Only delusional (25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM [b] don't need me to prove it) people like you will accept ethical and moral stance developed from delusions and illusions.

Read more about this in my book.[/b]

answer the questions Andrew

3 questions, and you managed to only answer one. Not to mention its rubbish the way you answer, but I will come back to that.

Wonder who is really delusional Rolling Eyes

AndrewPKYap SG

Say anything you want, (25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM don't need me to prove it) = delusional Laughing

soul_rage SG

Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Say anything you want, (25 September 2007 · 03:01 PM [b] don't need me to prove it) = delusional Laughing [/b]

Answer the questions.

1) Is love delusional coz Science cannot prove it?
2) Is religion delusional coz Science cannot prove it?
3) Is moral ethics delusional coz Science cannot prove it?

Let's take a step back and look at those questions above. It was created by you because you said anything that has no proof or evidence is delusional.

So you retract your statement?

AndrewPKYap SG

Who says science cannot prove love? Rolling Eyes Delusional

Are you talking about religion or religious beliefs? You can't tell the difference between religion and religious beliefs? What are you talking about when you say science cannot prove something? You mean, people just simply come up with any rubbish and science must prove it? After so many pages and you still do not get what this debate is all about?

If you want to make some claims, YOU come up with the proof and evidence. Not you come up with rubbish and then expect others to prove you right or wrong. Rolling Eyes

Otherwise, I can simple say, you are a pedophile (like the many accusations you make against me, so many examples in this page alone, without any basis) and expect the readers and you to accept it.

First of all, again, the proponents come up with the proof, not "science" and second of all what proof exactly do you want when you say "Prove moral ethics?" Rolling Eyes

Retract what statement? Only delusional people will cling on to something as fact when they have no proof / evidence for it.

You are really one confused person.

« Previous Page Next Page »