Pseudoscience Today

[Drag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
@carlo

Are you kidding?

I'd advice you to take a course in physics, a school level should be sufficient.

Anyway, I think that this thread is a huge success, we actually got pseudosientists defending the pseudosience =).
It shows very well that it is a waste of time to discuss anything with them.



[/ QUOTE ]


If I posted here to win the debate I'd probably run away from myself. That being said its funny to watch the likes of you running away crying"huge success, we win again" as you hurl epithets while advancing(??) to the rear.

By the way, what is this "we" stuff cowboy? You're right though, all systems terminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am all for debates and exchange of opinions. In your case it just looks pointless. You don't accept a scientific argument referencing some century old letter of some little known guy with far-fetched arguments as a disproof of a main stream concepts: existance of atoms.
Try to propose an explanaition for Brownian motion for example, which doesn't invole atoms. Then try to explain other well-known facts. If you can make it in a consistent manner, making some testable predictions along the way there would be some material for discussion. For the moment all your arguments are like saying that it is the sun which rotates around the Earth and not vice versa. That's just not serious get some education first.

[TomCowley]

Nobody should bother trying to win a debate with you, which would be pointless because it would involve you coherently conducting a logical discussion. This is like an episode of Law & Order where a schizo is so batshiat crazy that he's 100% convinced he's the sane one. People just talk to you long enough to confirm you are 100% oblivious/retarded and that discussion is pointless, call you a well-deserved name for wasting their time, and move on... while you go on convinced that you're 100% logically justified in everything you believe, just like the schizo.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Galileo had it coming for disrespecting his original patrons and imprudence, not his theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the throwaway comment about his theory on tides being wrong was...

[/ QUOTE ]
...a non-sequitir based on an irrelevant anecdote. Standard fare. It speaks volumes of Peter's position that he fools himself with these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it was just to show that Galileo's case was not a cut and dried affair of science versus religion as it is popularly made out to be. Scientists were disputing scientists with religion, philosophy and politics thrown into the fray. Galileo did not provide sufficient evidence in his case, so it is wrong to think of him as a martyr for scientific truth as is often done.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Galileo had it coming for disrespecting his original patrons and imprudence, not his theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the throwaway comment about his theory on tides being wrong was...

[/ QUOTE ]
...a non-sequitir based on an irrelevant anecdote. Standard fare. It speaks volumes of Peter's position that he fools himself with these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it was just to show that Galileo's case was not a cut and dried affair of science versus religion as it is popularly made out to be. Scientists were disputing scientists with religion, philosophy and politics thrown into the fray. Galileo did not provide sufficient evidence in his case, so it is wrong to think of him as a martyr for scientific truth as is often done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Galileo is probably one of the most important historical figures when it comes to modern science. His contribution to the development of modern physics is simply outstanding, for his age he was undoubtedly the greatest scientist there was, and if you were to somehow make a top three scientist list of all ages, it would be a weird list if he was not on it.

Punishing this man for speaking his mind and writing his works is probably one of the biggest 'crimes' commited against science ever. The equivalent would have to be something like throwing Newton or Einstein in jail.

We are incredibly fortunate that he was only sentenced to house arrest and allowed to write until his death and that the ban of his works was lifted not long after.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Galileo had it coming for disrespecting his original patrons and imprudence, not his theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the throwaway comment about his theory on tides being wrong was...

[/ QUOTE ]
...a non-sequitir based on an irrelevant anecdote. Standard fare. It speaks volumes of Peter's position that he fools himself with these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it was just to show that Galileo's case was not a cut and dried affair of science versus religion as it is popularly made out to be. Scientists were disputing scientists with religion, philosophy and politics thrown into the fray. Galileo did not provide sufficient evidence in his case, so it is wrong to think of him as a martyr for scientific truth as is often done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Galileo is probably one of the most important historical figures when it comes to modern science. His contribution to the development of modern physics is simply outstanding, for his age he was undoubtedly the greatest scientist there was, and if you were to somehow make a top three scientist list of all ages, it would be a weird list if he was not on it.

Punishing this man for speaking his mind and writing his works is probably one of the biggest 'crimes' commited against science ever. The equivalent would have to be something like throwing Newton or Einstein in jail.

We are incredibly fortunate that he was only sentenced to house arrest and allowed to write until his death and that the ban of his works was lifted not long after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but apparently he was wrong about some tide stuff.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Carlo,

If any 'alternative' therapies worked, the Asian countries wouldn't be crying out for Western medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

If western medicine "worked", we wouldn't have 'alternative' therapies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, thats like assuming once we have science noone would be religious or superstitious.

The East wants our medicine because they recognise it works and theirs doesnt, because ours has measurable effects which would benefit them directly. The same is not even remotely true in reverse.

Or course when there are gaps in Western medicine people try "anything", it doesn't mean "anything" is effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intead of using the word "worked", I should have used the phrase "had all the answers".

If patients are 100% satified with western medicine, why are they flocking to alternative care?

[/ QUOTE ]
Alternative care is a misnomer really anyhow. Very few use it as an alternative, more as a supplement.

If someone has cancer, they trek to the New Guinea faith healer after the chemotherapy has failed and the doctors have said it's inoperable. They dont sit down and decide which therapy to try out first.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Alternative care is a misnomer really anyhow. Very few use it as an alternative, more as a supplement.

If someone has cancer, they trek to the New Guinea faith healer after the chemotherapy has failed and the doctors have said it's inoperable. They dont sit down and decide which therapy to try out first.


[/ QUOTE ]