Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Democracy, checks and balances vs $$$cientific peer review process
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kaon" data-source="post: 74352354" data-attributes="member: 407930"><p>I am not talking about what humans call "pseudoscience" or woo, I am talking about peer-reviewed science - it exerts itself as a large measure of "truth". The conditions added to it are what make it conditional truth - subject to change. But, let's not forget academia is the same system, albeit tamed, that <strong>killed, imprisoned and humiliated people </strong>that disagreed with the established status quo. You can convince yourself that academia doesn't what has been "confirmed as fact" as truth conditionally, but it is definitely the case. Otherwise, why would we have a psychology of deriding people who disagree with the established paradigm?</p><p></p><p>If academia isn't set up as truth, why should anyone follow the school of thought? For the most part, people are looking for the <strong>truth</strong>; few people want to be strung along for a generation only to be told they have to think a different way by an established authority other than their God-given mind. There is nothing wrong with sharing ideas and technology; that is basic philosophy and "philadelphia". What is misleading and misinforming is when an idea is treated in a higher degree than another - especially since no human is better than the other.</p><p></p><p>There are also confirmed established facts that some members of the public just refuse to accept . The ridiculous furor over Evolution is a good example of that .</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">A tree still emits electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves <strong>when it agitates the ground,<u> breaks the bonds of its chemical composition to snap</u>, <u>and the branches of its body <em>interact with the air currents and each other</em></u></strong>. And, that is just we notice when a tree falls in our presence - extrapolated to the event in abstentia.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>The emphasis was an implication of a medium - the actual medium (bonds) before it reaches the "air", and certainly before it reaches your ear drums. This is another fundamental reason why no observer is needed for something to make a <em>sound</em> - independent of the medium. Even in a vacuum, that EM radiation can be captured and transformed into sound mechanically even down to its temporal and spacial origin. I did not specify that this process immediately transforms EM radiation into sound because the person I was speaking to (I assume) understood the context was the identity and longevity of something unobserved. Sound is not only physical, it is psychological and spiritual. If we really want to be pedantic, sound (and any observation) is "frozen-in" by the observer itself - manifesting into pure existence and therefore founded. </p><p></p><p>However, what you said is good clarification for a lurker who may have been confused.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kaon, post: 74352354, member: 407930"] I am not talking about what humans call "pseudoscience" or woo, I am talking about peer-reviewed science - it exerts itself as a large measure of "truth". The conditions added to it are what make it conditional truth - subject to change. But, let's not forget academia is the same system, albeit tamed, that [B]killed, imprisoned and humiliated people [/B]that disagreed with the established status quo. You can convince yourself that academia doesn't what has been "confirmed as fact" as truth conditionally, but it is definitely the case. Otherwise, why would we have a psychology of deriding people who disagree with the established paradigm? If academia isn't set up as truth, why should anyone follow the school of thought? For the most part, people are looking for the [B]truth[/B]; few people want to be strung along for a generation only to be told they have to think a different way by an established authority other than their God-given mind. There is nothing wrong with sharing ideas and technology; that is basic philosophy and "philadelphia". What is misleading and misinforming is when an idea is treated in a higher degree than another - especially since no human is better than the other. There are also confirmed established facts that some members of the public just refuse to accept . The ridiculous furor over Evolution is a good example of that . [INDENT]A tree still emits electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves [B]when it agitates the ground,[U] breaks the bonds of its chemical composition to snap[/U], [U]and the branches of its body [I]interact with the air currents and each other[/I][/U][/B]. And, that is just we notice when a tree falls in our presence - extrapolated to the event in abstentia. [/INDENT] The emphasis was an implication of a medium - the actual medium (bonds) before it reaches the "air", and certainly before it reaches your ear drums. This is another fundamental reason why no observer is needed for something to make a [I]sound[/I] - independent of the medium. Even in a vacuum, that EM radiation can be captured and transformed into sound mechanically even down to its temporal and spacial origin. I did not specify that this process immediately transforms EM radiation into sound because the person I was speaking to (I assume) understood the context was the identity and longevity of something unobserved. Sound is not only physical, it is psychological and spiritual. If we really want to be pedantic, sound (and any observation) is "frozen-in" by the observer itself - manifesting into pure existence and therefore founded. However, what you said is good clarification for a lurker who may have been confused. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Democracy, checks and balances vs $$$cientific peer review process
Top
Bottom