"It is remarked that no physician in Europe who had reached forty years of age ever, to the the end of his life, adopted Harvey's doctrine of the circulation of the blood; and that his practice in London diminished extremely from the reproach drawn upon him by that great and signal discovery. So slow is the progress of truth in every science, even when not opposed by factions or superstitious prejudices." -- David Hume, philosopher, History of England, 18th century
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
13 comments:
Hume could not have made such a statement today. He wrote that (around 1750-something), looking back on previous centuries, when we didn't have the processes in place that we do today. Now, I hear that some folks do cling to "retarded science" disproven, observation-ignoring and evidence-denying nonsense that just won't die.
Maybe he was talking about those folks.
LOL.
Arrogance is bliss?
What processes does science have in place now that make humans infallible now?
What processes does science have in place now that make humans infallible now?
Who said infallible? I just said that some ideas are definately able to be called dead.
Flat Earth, Geocentrism, Expanding Earth, Creationism, Solar Resistance Model, Solar Capacitor Model, Lamarkian Inheritance, (literal) Democritan Atomism, I could go on...
All your beliefs are based upon false assumptions, so I'd wager everything you think is false to be true.
Except, for you know... all that evidence and experimentation, repeat observation, simulation and the utter lack of support for all the nonsense like the areas of delusion I mentioned above.
Flat Earth - Earth has been proven to be an oblate spheroid, not a flat plane or disk.
Geocentrism - Earth does not sit at the "center" of anything.
Expanding Earth - No Mechanism, no evidence to support it.
Creationism - Earth is far older than 6000 years, and the book of Genesis contains not one observable, testable fact.
Solar Resistance Model - No evidence. No mechanism, no simulation, just technobabble.
Solar Capacitor Model - Where do the electrons come from? Why can't we detect them?
Lamarkian Inheritance - selection works with populations, not individuals.
Democritan Atomism - Atoms are divisible, their qualities are not determined by how, rough, smooth or spiky they are.
On the other hand, most of what I accept about the universe has a vast amount of evidence behind it.
Except my atheism. I have no proof of the non-existance or non-existance of any gods. Therefore, my atheism is, at best, a shaky notion.
All your beliefs are based upon false assumptions, so I'd wager everything you think is false to be true.
So your growing, disk-shaped Earth is at the center of the universe, made up of dirt-flavored indivisible atoms watched over by invisible beings that somehow flooded the whole thing, even though there is no lip to hold the water? Craters are not caused by rocks from space, but by other, for-some-odd-reason actually round planets spitting lightning at us?
And if I cut my arm off, my children will be born sans a limb?
Flat Earth is a modern Darwinist myth. See Stephen J Gould's essay titled Late Birth of a Flat Earth. All ancients knew the Earth is a sphere because Hindu and Hebrew Holy Scriptures say so.
Geocentrism is a modern Darwinist myth. All ancients with the exception of Ptolemy knew that the Earth orbited the Sun.
Expanding Earth -- photosynthesis takes photons from outerspace and adds billions of tons in biomass per year in carbon atoms to the earth, electromagnetic gravity causes meteorites and subatomic to add matter to the earth.
Creationism -- in actual reality the Hindu texts say that humans are millions of years old -- far older than the 50,000 or 200,000 year age Darwinists accept based upon faith and no evidence. Evolution doesn't believe that 4,000,000 year-old footprints exist in Tanzania.
Plate Tectonics is the most absurd and idiotic geological hypothesis since uniformitarianism and vitalism/biogenic hydrocarbon origin.
Photosynthesis moves carbon around. It does not add mass. We've been over this one.
I've been idle... but not free of thoughts on your latest pile of crap...
Geocentrism is a modern Darwinist myth. All ancients with the exception of Ptolemy knew that the Earth orbited the Sun.
So? Even assuming that everyone up to Ptolemy "knew" about heliocentrism, the fact is that some folks (notably religionists) bought it, and many still do. The fact that geocentrism as we know it is wrong is all I need for this discussion. The date of its conjecture is hardly pertinent.
Flat Earth is a modern Darwinist myth. See Stephen J Gould's essay titled Late Birth of a Flat Earth. All ancients knew the Earth is a sphere because Hindu and Hebrew Holy Scriptures say so.
Again... not a problem. It's still demonstrably wrong, and has been shown to be wrong since ancient times. My main point is that folks believe stupid things and cling to them religiously. Now... seriously challenge science with something better than Arcadians living before the Earth rotated and we'll be able to talk like adults about it.
However, in 3 years, you haven't shown anything other than a massive victimization complex and overt paranoia over mainstream science.
Photosynthesis adds matter called biomass. Do you know what biomass is?
Post a Comment