Appolinaria

Firefly... never watching that boring crap again. Watched it with two friends and fell asleep while they got all squirrelly over the technician girl.

to me it seems that its very apparent "i dont understand" is not a question. that is completely logical and there is no way it is ridicule. dirac may want to reconsider his task of instructing if he views those that dont understand as part of the less intelligent, dense group who misses his subtle ridicule. obviously, its not teaching them anything. he and his fellow more perceptive friends may be having a laugh, but its not accomplishing anything. I don't think dirac was ridiculing anyone. you can have me memorize all of the mathematical proofs and derivations in the world, or the name of a bird in all languages of the world, but when I'm finished, I may not understand the proofs, or know anything whatsoever about the bird. this, I think many scientists realize. and you see it marked through the use of analogy, through the demeanor of a sociable, kind person. being able to transfer a concept to a subject is far more a mark of intelligence than being able to regurgitate facts to them.

i would not call dirac ignorant. this is because he refrained from making any assertion. there is nothing to interpret as ridicule.

unless it was just a poor joke.

I do not understand this. Michel said ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. Meaning, commonly it is ignorant people who use ridicule. I don't understand how this statement is a fallacy.

Is there a section of the forum for questions about it? Would really like to know. Thanks.

agreed.

ok ridicule has some positives on society. these are slim compared to the negatives. ridicule isnt beneficial to science or society, overall. if the negatives outweigh the positives, it cannot be argued as useful. laws are put in place to ensure that a negative outcome isnt achieved.

you cannot tell me we are not discussing its effects on society and then give only examples such as tv shows and cold fusion, where the only benefit of ridicule is changing societys viewpoints. if we are specifying the audience where ridicule is useful, who does your example of the jon stewart show apply to? not society? if arguing its use on the forums, who is the specified audience? i dont see anything saying you have to be a scientist, or have blonde hair. there is nothing specifying the audience aside from a general interest in science which is not specific enough to rule anyone out. is the forum not a mini representation of society?

Unfortunately, when determining rules for society, generalization is necessary. Sure, some people can probably drive after having 6 drinks. Does this apply to the majority? No.

Ridicule in theory might be a good thing. But will society abide by it? Use it appropriately? Probably not. The large majority most likely won't use it properly because not everyone has proper moral conduct. And rules are created to apply to the majority. Ridicule seems to inspire negativity. We are humans. We have to make sure Prometheus doesn't get fire, and that Pandora doesn't get her hands on that god damned box. Keep order.

But the amount of evidence that proves the tool of ridicule has proven beneficial is slim. There are always going to be two sides to an argument, we have to adjust our rules in favor of one side based on how prevalent it is. More often, IMO, ridicule takes away credibility and efficiency than it does lend to it.

I still think ridicule is a bunch of fluff we need to cut out. Ridiculing an idea unfortunately often leads to that person being insulted or feeling ridiculed. We're brash, boisterous humans with an innate urge to cause trouble. Let's try to diminish anything that can stir up our natural instincts. Let the facts speak, instead. Cut out your personal comments. Sorry guys, but we're human, and we need to compensate for our inevitable emotional responses. Do you tell a child Sparky got violently struck by a car and his guts splattered everywhere? No, you adjust it for a child's ears.... we are constantly adjusting how we interact to make sure it's appropriate. First we are human, second we are observers of the world around us. This thread would have been a lot more concise and short, minus all of the side banter and backhanded insults that aren't technically ridicule. We would have about 3 examples of where ridicule has been shown to benefit science.

what was gravity before we rationalized it

Replace God with unknown force. This still works. Right now nothing exists outside the universe. An unknown force responsible for it must work outside of it. Oh, look what I did now. 0:]

Oh shit. I was unaware of this. I took intelligent design as the vague self-explanatory concept I thought it was. Woops, tehe.

Both are possibly valid. No natural laws specifically say they can't happen. If there arguably is a creator, he has created the product of our universe, which makes us go looking for him. A unicorn with lipgloss has left no evidence that makes us go looking for it. If you try to tell me the aurora borealis is a product of unicorns, I will tell you otherwise, because I have proof. If you try to tell me our universe is a product of God, I cannot tell you otherwise, until I have proof.

I am saying that science might be able to prove ID one day.

I don't understand what you're missing here. I said cowboys don't insult women. You insulted me, and I am a woman. Moving on, Mississippichem has provided a valid argument without ridiculing me. Can you do the same?

I'm not saying you should go on wild chases and not sleep at night chasing a unicorn. I am saying you should go on wild chases trying to explain the reasoning behind our seemingly spontaneous existence. ID cannot be ruled out merely by the fact that a designer is not observed.... right now. It might seem irrational, you might ridicule with the Spaghetti Monster, but nothing in science says it cannot exist. So absolutely NO reason to ridicule. Especially because you have no scientific evidence proving the contrary.

I accept this. Good job.

"The steady state model is now largely discredited, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe." And what can you even argue his rejection did? The theory was proposed by Lemaitre. I don't understand your argument, perhaps because I'm not well informed on this. Please explain.