People say science is...
 

too subjective. What are your thoughts :confused:

There's an awful lot of peer review in science. I'm not sure what specifically we are talking about but most sciency news you hear/read has been scrutinized and reviewed repeatedly by people much smarter than you and me. Yay science!

I could give a fuck tbh. I think science is dope. I find different religions interesting. And I'm not trying to bring up a religion/science argument type of thing. I just find people should focus more on expanding themselves, and enjoying life in general, rather than bickering and debating over petty crap. People can think what they want, but that isn't going to stop scientists from doing their thing. So I say, fuck it.

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

How in the fuck is science in ANY way subjective at all? Science tests things over and over again to get a common result, then, only when there is sufficient evidence for whatever is at hand, is it considered true. Enf or whoever mentioned Religion, Religion is in every way subjective. Religion is purely based upon faith, a feeling / opinion that some unverifiable mystical force with no factual evidence to be based upon is present. Science removes any subjectivity by ever evolving and correcting past errors, Religion stays subjective by emanating dogmatic principles that state something is right / true until the end of time.

Notice that we no longer believe the earth is flat? Yes, this is because even though it was the general populations subjective opinion that the earth was flat science determined that it was in fact spherical. This is why science will never be subjective, it essentially says "Hey, fuck your feelings and opinions. I don't give two shits if you think that the earth is flat, here's demonstrable evidence stating otherwise."

Religion implements dogmatic principles that never evolve, never correct themselves even when new evidence arises infallibly disproving the past discrepancies. I mean, if it wasn't for the social and cultural progression of the human race in recent decades, and we lived by the solemn rule of the bible, slavery would then be completely morally justified as the old and new testament plainly advocates it.

^And this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. People get to focused on trying to prove a point, or trying to disprove something else when in reality neither party ever really learns anything and goes back to their previous mind-set and the whole thing turns into a waste of time. Whereas as I said, who gives a fuck what people say, expand yourself, breathe in life while you're still here rather than focusing on the petty crap.

[youtube]lJZNVGpuQ7o[/youtube]

Simply because you hold the opinion that people shouldn't give a shit about wildly important subjects in proving truth or not doesn't mean everyone else who doesn't is in the wrong. If people just didn't "get too focused on trying to prove a point" we wouldn't have half of the things we have in our life today. It is this slacker mentality that promotes inefficient, lackadaisical, and lethargic living principles that lead to no cultural or societal progression at all. If humanity as a whole lived by the premise that you stated in this subject we'd still be enslaving people because of their skin pigment and seeing women as lesser beings.

Maybe you hear and argument and go back to the previous mind-set, but most critical thinking people take an argument into consideration and revise their opinions based upon what is truthful. If you seriously just see an argument that could potential fell a belief that you hold and simply disregard it then you are living in a pool of ignorance and I abhor you. Trying to find out if what you believe is right or wrong is the farthest thing from "petty crap" in the world..

For somebody supporting the argument that science IS subjective, they would probably claim evolution was influenced by Darwin's atheistic belief. But, like Crysis said, you can test science to make sure it's correct.

Lol Enf...Argument is healthy.

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

History is subjective though.

Charles Darwin was a christian, he was studying in the Church of England under Anglican theology to become a Clergyman, actually. He absolutely hated the fact that he found the evidence for evolution because it shook his belief so much, and essentially disproved the existence of the biblical creation accounts. After he founded the basic premises for evolution he became somewhat deistic (believing in a god, but not a specific one) then later moved on to Atheism.

But I'm very sure some science is subjective, it would be absolutely insane of me to state that science is foolproof and absent of ignorance by some. What is unfounded is saying that common laws/scientific principles that have been accepted by millions and tested by tens of thousands are subjective, as if they were they would have been ruled out by the subjectivity fallacy within scientific discoveries.

Notice I said "People" waste too much time bickering over petty crap. When I say people, I mean the average citizen, I.E, you and me. Are we scientists? You completely misconstrued the whole point I was getting at. Scientists have the right to bicker, because THEY make the change. But your average 9-5, I.E, you and me, don't. Also go back to my first point, I love science and find the idea behind religion interesting because I look to expand myself. THAT'S the whole point. People shouldn't fight a war when no one benefits. You telling a Christian religion is wrong, even with backing it with scientific fact is going to change his mind-set. And vice-versa. The point is the AVERAGE person should be focused on expanding themselves, opening their minds to things they normally wouldn't and being more complete as an individual. NOT arguing of "petty crap" that they will have no impact on. Leave that to the scientists that will have the impact. Wasting so much time looking at how others live we don't even look at ourselves.

I would go ahead and say, akin to Crysis's point, that the study of science has always strived to be the most unequivocal and objectively correct medium of research.

Anyone that says that science is too subjective is either an uppity religious grouch trying to poke holes in it or completely uninformed.

Know nothing? They (assuming your referring to scientist) might have a small amount of knowledge in certain areas but nothing? Lol. Naw...Scientist know a lot about the physics that applies on earth/space. Obviously, they haven't made science a perfect/complete form of knowledge, but it can explain a lot of things.

Yea bro^

I think there's a reason Science & Religion naturally butt-heads, I just can't seem to wrap my mind around it yet.

@SuperGuy
"Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance-Not afraid to admit what we don't know. There's no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

@Crysis hey, you seem to be the closed minded one not me with all your 'Facts' and 'Nothing is real but Logic an hard evidence' (Even tho there is proof if you dig deep enough) and thats fine you can think how ever you like, don't try change my mind into thinking like you tho.

Also I ain't gonna argue with you post after post like you do with other dudes.

"Condemnation without investigation is the hight of ignorance" - Elbert Einstein

You have no clue what you're talking about. I'm in no way closed minded, just because I state my side of the argument on things does not mean I don't tolerate the other side. If you have some proof that you've found from digging deep down stop being retarded and state it, don't randomly comment that the entire institution for our advanced existence knows nothing then act surprised when people call you a moron. It's literally like saying "The entire basis for fundamental mathematics is wrong. 2+2 is actually 17." then calling whoever says you're wrong closed minded.

And I'm not trying to change your mind on shit, you choose how to take in the things people say. I'm simply stating my claims based upon factual evidence that I've found. If you choose to reject basic logical principles that's on you, and not my problem, but if you choose to combat my logical principles with some of your own then we can come to a position in which we've both learned something.

"Ignorance is bliss" - Thomas Gray

@Crysis here is a youtube video you can watch wait till the kid stops rapping and when the dude stars speaking.

Regaurding the poet:

I've never understood this entire "Every bit of institutionalized positions in power are corrupt" position. Not everybody is out to get us, and not every political power is a corrupt bastard. This shit borderlines conspiracy theorists.

Regaurding the speaker:

Basic pseudo-logical principles rejecting the legitimacy in any institution of logical reasoning. He's taking generally subjective abstracts within concepts and molding them towards the premise that logic, reasoning, and rational thought are unfounded / ill formed.

Normality is subjective. His entire argument is structured so poorly that he doesn't see that almost everybody has a difference in opinion within the subjective definition of "Normal". He's also fundamentally wrong on his very first point, our society isn't black and white. Points are not immediately rejected just because they are harder to grasp. These points, if given light to those who have the capabilities, are tested under conditions to prove or disprove their legitimacy unless the point itself violates a widely accepted law that is close to infallible.

Case in point, if you tell me that there's a pink ninja that only you can see following you around with a spectral katana, I'm going to call you insane. If this later proves to be actually true, so what? It was unfounded when it had no evidence. Him saying that the earth was a sphere and it being rejected by those who were under the impression that it was flat bares no significance. We as a collective whole do not know everything, that doesn't mean we should go around assuming pink ninjas follow everyone.

The absence of proof is not proof of anything.

/endrant.

"The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence." - Samuel L. Jackson.

In the beginning, God said....... the four dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric second rank tensor equals zero.........and there was light.

Lol'd heartily.

That was right after he figured out how the entropy of the universe can be massively decreased, correct?