Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:There are numerous other obvious flaws (Score 1) 194

by camperdave (#47968171) Attached to: Nvidia Sinks Moon Landing Hoax Using Virtual Light
The reflectors aren't proof of anything. There could be naturally occurring retro-reflective crystals on the moon, and NASA's just claiming they landed there. Now, if you had evidence that there was nothing retro-reflecting BEFORE the Apollo missions, then you might have something.

Note: just pointing out the flaw in the argument, not participating in the hoaxer camp.

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 609

by meta-monkey (#47965479) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Fabricating a god because you are not satisfied that 'shit just happened to turn out well enough for you that you survived to ask the question' is disingenuous.

Maybe I'm not satisfied with that explanation because there's no proof life is meaningless? Absence of proof is not proof of absence. "Meaning" isn't even falsifiable. It's not the domain of science. Science is silent on the subject of meaning. If you're waiting for science to tell you whether there's meaning or not to life you're going to be waiting a long time.

Why should I subject every aspect of my life to scientific test? Much of life is not falsifiable. Should I not love my wife because I can't devise a scientific test for love? Should I not enjoy a summer day because I can't devise a scientific test for enjoyment?

There's no proof life has a meaning. There's no proof it doesn't.

I choose to believe it does.

I choose to believe that man is not merely an animal.

I choose to believe that human life has objective value.

I choose to believe that we are more than flesh and blood.

I choose to believe that life doesn't end at death.

You're free to believe some of that, none of that, whatever you like. I can't prove any of it. If you can devise tests for any of those things I'd be delighted to look at the results.

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 609

by meta-monkey (#47964731) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

So why does the universe exist? Science tells us why (read an astrophysics text book) and it has very good reasoning and experimentation to back it up

No, science gives us a good idea of "how." But "why" is a philosophy question. Why are we here? What is the purpose of life, the universe, and everything? There are no significant falsifiable statements to make on such matters, so the scientific method doesn't do us much good.

My religion and science are orthogonal. I believe in God. His Creation, though, I test.

Comment: Re:Philosophy of Science (Score 1) 609

by meta-monkey (#47964673) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

That's what labs are for. In chemistry lab, in physics lab in high school and college we absolutely asked questions, formed hypotheses, designed and performed experiments, recorded the results, analyzed them (including error bars and appropriate significant figures) and drew conclusions.

But yes, for the most part, people who didn't pay much attention or have no real scientific education who Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson quotes on FaceBook see science as a body of knowledge that is queried.

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...