Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

People reject science because...


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

#136    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,027 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 14 October 2013 - 11:00 AM

Is it not hypocritical for bible thumpers to reject some aspects of science and not others? Some religious people see the bible as allegorical and don't take it literally. Those who seriously believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 6 days are out of touch with reality. People who criticize science because some things scientists assert change over time don't understand the nature of science which is to always challenge assumptions and modify theories as better observation brings better information. I think theoretical science especially physics is doing fine and is in the most exciting phase in history.as they are on the verge of answering some of the most basic questions man has asked since there have been men.


#137    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 14 October 2013 - 11:06 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 14 October 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

That's interesting. I don't consider myself elderly,but I am getting a little long in the tooth so I have started getting flu shots every year. Last year I got the flu anyway and I figured it must have been a different strain than I got the shot for. I wonder if this is because the vaccine is designed to produce antibodies against the disease and the elderly's ability to make these antibodies is impaired?

Exactly, the current thinking is that the older one gets the less effective a vaccine will be due to the fact that an older immune system just isn't as active. But, (and here's the mystery) most of the time even very elderly people get a better success rate than 9%. Personally speaking, I've come down with flu despite having the shot (and I'm not quite 'elderly' yet but definitely 'long in the tooth'). Just perhaps our notion of who should be heavily vaccinated should change? If the population that has the most contact with the public is zeroed in on then that may serve to protect the older people (who may not be very well protected despite having shots themselves). I wonder what the thinking is over at the CDC?

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#138    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 14,766 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 14 October 2013 - 11:35 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 14 October 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Is it not hypocritical for bible thumpers to reject some aspects of science and not others?

Religious fundamentalism generally has a vested interest in keeping people ignorant, which science threatens.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#139    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,544 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:01 PM

View PostUncle Sam, on 14 October 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

Vaccines actually decease the bodies ability to fight off common infections, because it takes the load off the bodies immune system, causing us to become weaker. We would become dependent on vaccines, while the immune system steadily gets weaker. I rather have a strong immune system and only take vaccines for deadly ones, instead of make it weaker because I don't want to go through common ones. :\
Quite the opposite; the challenge a vaccine presents tends to put the immune system through its paces -- give it practice, if you will.  For quite a few weeks after a vaccination one has an enhanced immune system.


#140    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,544 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:03 PM

You can come down with the flu if you get a different strain than the one you were vaccinated against.  Also, all that parades as flu is not necessarily.


#141    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,357 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:32 PM

View PostUncle Sam, on 14 October 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

Vaccines actually decease the bodies ability to fight off common infections, because it takes the load off the bodies immune system, causing us to become weaker. We would become dependent on vaccines, while the immune system steadily gets weaker. I rather have a strong immune system and only take vaccines for deadly ones, instead of make it weaker because I don't want to go through common ones. :\

Vaccines do nothing to your immune system other than show them what an invading pathogen will look like without becoming infected.  There is no mechanism in which vaccines would weaken your immune system and there is no effect whatsoever on whether or not you will be able to respond to other antigens.


#142    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:45 PM

View PostFurthurBB, on 14 October 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:


Vaccines do nothing to your immune system other than show them what an invading pathogen will look like without becoming infected.  There is no mechanism in which vaccines would weaken your immune system and there is no effect whatsoever on whether or not you will be able to respond to other antigens.

Exactly, but apparently (or so current research indicates) the older one gets the less effective ones immune system appears to be in developing antibodies to these pathogens. So, a vaccinated 75 year old probably won't gain as great a chance at immunity as would a vaccinated 35 year old. See what I mean?

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#143    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,544 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:50 PM

View PostLilly, on 14 October 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Exactly, but apparently (or so current research indicates) the older one gets the less effective ones immune system appears to be in developing antibodies to these pathogens. So, a vaccinated 75 year old probably won't gain as great a chance at immunity as would a vaccinated 35 year old. See what I mean?
As we age everything works less well, so I'm not surprised.


#144    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:31 PM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 14 October 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Is it not hypocritical for bible thumpers to reject some aspects of science and not others? Some religious people see the bible as allegorical and don't take it literally. Those who seriously believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 6 days are out of touch with reality. People who criticize science because some things scientists assert change over time don't understand the nature of science which is to always challenge assumptions and modify theories as better observation brings better information. I think theoretical science especially physics is doing fine and is in the most exciting phase in history.as they are on the verge of answering some of the most basic questions man has asked since there have been men.
As to the biblical thing, IMO anyone who takes the bible literally needs some mental examination.

As to theoretical physics, I don't think it's doing fine.  Sorry about this, but there are quite a few misinterpretations, exemptions and outright lies involving quantum mechanics, along with assumptions that are way beyond reality.  Some of these are such that they affect the very basis of theoretical physics.  Further, theoretical physicists and/or their popular reporter counterparts make statements about who proved what that simply aren't true, as in the case of Michaelson/Morley and Hubbel.  They also assert such nonsense as 'without quantum mechanics, we wouldn't have the laser,' a statement which is patently false, since if one applies Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem to the laser, the machine becomes impossible to construct.

It is interesting, to a small degree, that after a hundred years of farting around with quanta, theoretical physics appears to be doing a 180 and rethinking ether, although under different names.  Naturally, no one in the field wants to admit that those scientists back then (1800s - early 1900s) actually knew much of anything, even though their research/theories are the basis of modern physics in all respects, but use the transforms.  As with any reinterpretation (such as language translation) there are errors introduced, and theoretical physics is not exempt.

Although I tend to think Einstein was somewhat off base, I do tend to agree with one of his statements (made c. 1953 or thereabouts), to paraphrase: 'The more quantum mechanics advances, the sillier it seems.'  If you want the exact quote, I'll look it up.


#145    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,544 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:00 PM

Rabidcat -- you didn't convince me there is much wrong with quantum mechanics except your ignorance of it.  By the way, Einstein came around, begrudgingly, so you can quote him all you want.

We have a great deal of difficulty picturing what goes on in quantum mechanics.  That is our fault, not quantum mechanics' fault.


#146    crimson089

crimson089

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 49 posts
  • Joined:06 Oct 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:South East Asia

  • I'd rather believe on a conspiracy than believing on a government that's feeding off its taxpayers

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:25 PM

People reject science because........... they can't find a definite cure for cancer :innocent:

Posted Image

#147    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,575 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:58 PM

View Postcrimson089, on 14 October 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

People reject science because........... they can't find a definite cure for cancer :innocent:
That's like saying they can't find a cure for death.


#148    crimson089

crimson089

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 49 posts
  • Joined:06 Oct 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:South East Asia

  • I'd rather believe on a conspiracy than believing on a government that's feeding off its taxpayers

Posted 14 October 2013 - 04:11 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 14 October 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

That's like saying they can't find a cure for death.
cancer already considered as death?!

Posted Image

#149    simplybill

simplybill

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Heartland of America

Posted 14 October 2013 - 05:15 PM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 14 October 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Is it not hypocritical for bible thumpers to reject some aspects of science and not others? Some religious people see the bible as allegorical and don't take it literally. Those who seriously believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 6 days are out of touch with reality. People who criticize science because some things scientists assert change over time don't understand the nature of science which is to always challenge assumptions and modify theories as better observation brings better information. I think theoretical science especially physics is doing fine and is in the most exciting phase in history.as they are on the verge of answering some of the most basic questions man has asked since there have been men.
I see a "perspective" problem: science and religion are often presented as "either-or" choices. Both sides often expect their adherents to choose one or the other.
I'm convinced that science and religion are the same thing. As we learn more about both, the two ends of the spectrum will be drawn closer together.
Edit to add:
A better way to state my position might be to say, "Scientific Truth and Religious Truth"  are the same thing. Scientific opinion and false religion will always be at odds.

Edited by simplybill, 14 October 2013 - 05:19 PM.

Every warrior is happy when his enemies flee before him, but much more blessed is the man to whom his fiercest enemies can come with confidence, knowing beforehand they will be received with love.
Richard Wurmbrand in Reaching Toward the Heights.

#150    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 October 2013 - 09:09 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 14 October 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Rabidcat -- you didn't convince me there is much wrong with quantum mechanics except your ignorance of it.  By the way, Einstein came around, begrudgingly, so you can quote him all you want.

We have a great deal of difficulty picturing what goes on in quantum mechanics.  That is our fault, not quantum mechanics' fault.
No, Einstein did not.  If this is what you think, perhaps you should read some more of Einstein's history, along with his letters to various physicists, up to near his death.  One other thing is that there has never, ever been consensus except in the minds of those who actually don't understand qm.  You'll find, if you're willing to look, that some camps embrace Heisenberg, others embrace Schroedinger's waves, still others are involved in Dirac etc and on and on.  I've had my discussions with Feynmann (was a personal friend) and still I can't agree with his virtual photon energy transfer.  It is, IMO, much more reasonable to assume Schroedinger's standing waves are more correct, since said energy transfer is easily explained.  Still, there is the conundrum of qm violation of Newton's third, along with several tons of other problems.  If you aren't familiar with those, then you should fix your own knowledge before accusing others of their lack of it.

What you call my ignorance of it is probably far less than yours.  If you were to read some of the dissenting opinions on quantum mechanics, and if you were familiar with the Bell tests (en toto), and if you were familiar with all the transformations, et cetera, along with the actual dissentions within qm, perhaps you would alter your opinions.  It's my personal belief that science of any sort should be based upon fact rather than whiteboards filled with statistical gyrations and approximations.  While there are some things we simply have difficulty in measuring, such as your "dark matter/dark energy" or ether or whatever you want to call it or measurement of longitudinal fields vs. transverse fields, most stuff we can measure.

I've also had my experiences with such outfits as Sandia Labs, Lockheed and other subliminal research organizations, something which you probably lack.  In this experience, I've learned that qm and its transformations are not acceptable as substitutes for real measurements, especially with the skunk works: those people don't deal with approximations very well, they want physical measurements.  So whatever you've read in your popular science stuff isn't necessarily what happens within reality.

Moreover, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  If I sat down here and started describing some of the things I've done on the bench, along with the math, theory and factual measurements, just about everyone I've read here would be lost in minutes.  This isn't to say I'm some damned genius so far above anyone else, because I'm not, but it is to say I'm unwilling to simply accept what everyone else believes to be factual without some form of verification.  That leads to a very different outlook on your beloved science.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users