Chat Thread

Rei Andros wrote:

Zzonked wrote:Observable doesn't necessarily mean true either (only true in the context we have), people observed that the sun rotated around the earth, but when more technology and data came out that was ruled out. Maybe one day we'll develop a way to look at particles that we can't even comprehend now and it shows millions of tiny invisible bears pulling particles to one another and we believe that instead of gravity, point being nothing is set in stone.

Nope. Catholic church made that up. When Galileo actually did some science that was quickly rebuffed.

Subjectivity is in science is mostly based off ignorance or wrong interpretation of observable phenomena. Like how Hyppocrates (sp?) thought veins carried air b/c he didn't see any blood in them.

El Jefe wrote:Far Cry 3 or Football Manager?

Forest wrote:Hate it when the chat threads full of long boring posts

pla just make a thread and talk about your shite

Forest wrote:Hate it when the chat threads full of long boring posts

pla just make a thread and talk about your shite

Forest wrote:I'm revising you fucking creep

Zzonked wrote:

Dagbon wrote:Gravity is an observable phenomenon, larger bodies of mass pull smaller ones towards it(smaller ones have gravity too, but its negligible in contrast to the larger's one usually). If we had quageldorf instead of gravity it would just be a different label for the same thing. But I agree with what you mentioned about scientific theories. But how you mentioned scientists pick which theory is the mainstay is through logic and the data they are able to collect with their technological capabilities.

I didn't mean quageldorf was the same thing as gravity, I meant that it was something completely different and not related. I didn't use an example because it's difficult for me to think of a theory that absolutely doesn't exist right now.

It wasn't so much aimed at which theory is chosen as the mainstay
either, it was more that they subjectively choose which things to develop and test. Like if Isaac Newton had never thought of gravity and instead quageldorf. We may believe something entirely different. The only argument against this is that certain theories have an innate quality for better and worse, which pulls us into a whole 'nother and quite confusing debate

Observable doesn't necessarily mean true either (only true in the context we have), people observed that the sun rotated around the earth, but when more technology and data came out that was ruled out. Maybe one day we'll develop a way to look at particles that we can't even comprehend now and it shows millions of tiny invisible bears pulling particles to one another and we believe that instead of gravity, point being nothing is set in stone.

Dagbon wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

I didn't mean quageldorf was the same thing as gravity, I meant that it was something completely different and not related. I didn't use an example because it's difficult for me to think of a theory that absolutely doesn't exist right now.

It wasn't so much aimed at which theory is chosen as the mainstay
either, it was more that they subjectively choose which things to develop and test. Like if Isaac Newton had never thought of gravity and instead quageldorf. We may believe something entirely different. The only argument against this is that certain theories have an innate quality for better and worse, which pulls us into a whole 'nother and quite confusing debate

Observable doesn't necessarily mean true either (only true in the context we have), people observed that the sun rotated around the earth, but when more technology and data came out that was ruled out. Maybe one day we'll develop a way to look at particles that we can't even comprehend now and it shows millions of tiny invisible bears pulling particles to one another and we believe that instead of gravity, point being nothing is set in stone.

I'm tired as all hell so the main thing I want to mention is that starting qualgeldorf instead of gravity would only be a setback. Issac thought of gravity because an apple fell on his head. The guy who came with chips (crisps for you tea drinkers) made them that way because of a douchey customer, and some vaccination was found because a guy fucked up and forgot to clean something and it ended up being good. So I see good things being discovered as an inevitibility, and it makes sense since the more time passes the chances of it happening will only increase.

Dagbon wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

Dagbon wrote:Gravity is an observable phenomenon, larger bodies of mass pull smaller ones towards it(smaller ones have gravity too, but its negligible in contrast to the larger's one usually). If we had quageldorf instead of gravity it would just be a different label for the same thing. But I agree with what you mentioned about scientific theories. But how you mentioned scientists pick which theory is the mainstay is through logic and the data they are able to collect with their technological capabilities.

I didn't mean quageldorf was the same thing as gravity, I meant that it was something completely different and not related. I didn't use an example because it's difficult for me to think of a theory that absolutely doesn't exist right now.

It wasn't so much aimed at which theory is chosen as the mainstay
either, it was more that they subjectively choose which things to develop and test. Like if Isaac Newton had never thought of gravity and instead quageldorf. We may believe something entirely different. The only argument against this is that certain theories have an innate quality for better and worse, which pulls us into a whole 'nother and quite confusing debate

Observable doesn't necessarily mean true either (only true in the context we have), people observed that the sun rotated around the earth, but when more technology and data came out that was ruled out. Maybe one day we'll develop a way to look at particles that we can't even comprehend now and it shows millions of tiny invisible bears pulling particles to one another and we believe that instead of gravity, point being nothing is set in stone.

I'm tired as all hell so the main thing I want to mention is that starting qualgeldorf instead of gravity would only be a setback. Issac thought of gravity because an apple fell on his head. The guy who came with chips (crisps for you tea drinkers) made them that way because of a douchey customer, and some vaccination was found because a guy fucked up and forgot to clean something and it ended up being good. So I see good things being discovered as an inevitibility, and it makes sense since the more time passes the chances of it happening will only increase.

crump wrote:Since I lifted yesterday my arms have seized up.

For you to imagine it.

They're in a perfect position if I want to do everything with my hands on my hips or hold two drinks in my hand.

Forest wrote:I'm revising you fucking creep

Chip wrote:Ahhh, home alone until Monday now