To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate - that is the question

[engineergurl]

I suppose an engineering degree is not a science degree, but still, you guys all should have had enough of the basic science courses to understand the scientific process and its basis in data and repeatability, and how that differs from religion or conspiracy theories.

some of us have degrees in science.

and Ptatohed, read the book "The Science of Getting Rich" by Wallace Wattles. now THAT is some supernatural, religious manifestation explanation

.

 

[goodal]

Science does not need to assume anything supernatural to operate.

I'm not trying to draw this out any but that particular statement is not entirely accurate if you've ever taken a modern physics course vs. the more traditional classical physics. There are phenomena in modern physics where assumptions have to be made because the actual result hasn't been proven due to events that usually cannot be re-created. Such events could be construed as "supernatural".

Can you give an example? Well, I would contend that as long as the unexpected results can be expected, there is nothing supernatural going on. What does supernatural mean anyway? If something new happened, no matter how shocking or unpredicted, in our natural world, wouldn't it be natural, not supernatural? :S

The big bang was not observed, cannot be proven or repeated, yet it is held up as scientific fact. Yes, I heard it said again yesterday. Its a fact. There is no doubt it happened in "anyone's" mind, but it doesn't even hold up to their own definition of science.

 

[roadwreck]

The big bang was not observed, cannot be proven or repeated, yet it is held up as scientific fact.

I'm pretty sure that's why they named it the Big Bang Theory. Does a lot of the scientific community believe that it happened that way? Sure. Is a lot of subsequent science based on that theory? Yes. But that's pretty much the way it has to be because as you pointed out, no one was around to observe it but that's this is the best theory put forth based on what we currently know. Can that theory change as we learn more about the universe? Yes.

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

The best part about science is that if something is tested that challenges the theory, the theory is changed.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang

Two physicists are trying to revive one of the great debates of twentieth-century science, arguing that the Big Bang may never have happened. Their work presents a radically different vision of the universe from the one cosmologists now work with.

 

[goodal]

Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.

 

[DVINNY]

Good Lord you people are making me depressed.

I am forming a hypothesis that it is not vaccines that are causing autism, but something every single person in the continental U.S. is consuming that is causing it AND making the majority of you mildly paranoid, to the point of believing crazy conspiracy theories and conflating religion with science!

I very much agree with you on what you say above. I am not saying it is necessarily vaccines either, as you see in my post that I've quoted below. Is it having a set of 'older' parents? is it due to Miracle Grow? is it due to pesticides? I've heard all these theories, and believe there is a cause to be found.

I was saying that dismissing any of those because "Science is science" is VERY short-sighted and quite sad.

I also do not accept that it was under-diagnosed prior as a valid dismissal either.

I'm actually surprised that for a forum full of engineers, how many just easily "accept science".

I think the true scientific approach is to always question everything. To see if an event is a coincidence, if something is cause & effect, if pesticides are bad, vaccines, etc.

All I know is that in the last 25 years, Autism went from 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 68. Where are the SCIENTISTS we need now to figure this out?

I'm glad people are questioning vaccines, pesticides, older parents, and other theories as the cause, maybe we'll figure out the cause.

What I do not agree with is saying "oh science is great, that **** is safe, continue on, nothing to see here", while we continue to diagnose child after child with Autism.

 

[ptatohed]

If the US didn't land on the moon, don't you think the Russians would have been all over it call our bluff?

I'm still curious why they never went?

The big bang was not observed, cannot be proven or repeated, yet it is held up as scientific fact. Yes, I heard it said again yesterday. Its a fact. There is no doubt it happened in "anyone's" mind, but it doesn't even hold up to their own definition of science.

I don't agree with this. Something does not have to be observed to be fact. By definition of the process, evolution takes a very long time to make tiny changes in species. We can't view it. But it is a fact that it happened. There are mounds of evidence all over the planet. There is plenty of evidence that the universe had a beginning at a single point some 14.5B years ago. Just as in forensics, a murder can be solved by piecing together the clues, even if there was no witness.

The big bang was not observed, cannot be proven or repeated, yet it is held up as scientific fact.

I'm pretty sure that's why they named it the Big Bang Theory. Does a lot of the scientific community believe that it happened that way? Sure. Is a lot of subsequent science based on that theory? Yes. But that's pretty much the way it has to be because as you pointed out, no one was around to observe it but that's this is the best theory put forth based on what we currently know. Can that theory change as we learn more about the universe? Yes.

Well put.

The best part about science is that if something is tested that challenges the theory, the theory is changed.

Very true. Unlike bible literalists who will not even consider changing their beliefs even when presented with evidence. As they say, the facts should define your beliefs; your beliefs should not define the facts.

Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.

Many things are fact and theory. The fact is that it happened. Evolution is a fact. It happened (and is happening). The theory is the "how?". Right now the leading theory is natural selection. Even gravity is fact and theory. We take it as fact that if I throw a ball up, it will come down. But why does it come back down? Well, the best leading theory we have for the why is that objects are attracted to other objects proportionally to the mass of their bodies multiplied, and inversely proportional to the distance between them, squared. This is the theory or the how/why - part of gravity. That gravity exists, is a fact.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.

I think some outspokenly atheistic scientists have started taking a hard line on the Big Bang Theory to counteract fundamentalist Christians that take a hard line on creationism. In my mind, they are both equally wrong because neither of their theories have been tested or proven.

 

[Road Guy]

The Russians are mere amateurs on the global stage in all reality

 

[ptatohed]

Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.

I think some outspokenly atheistic scientists have started taking a hard line on the Big Bang Theory to counteract fundamentalist Christians that take a hard line on creationism. In my mind, they are both equally wrong because neither of their theories have been tested or proven.

I don't see how you can compare and equate any creation myth to a true scientific theory derived from evidence and facts and observation.

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.

I think some outspokenly atheistic scientists have started taking a hard line on the Big Bang Theory to counteract fundamentalist Christians that take a hard line on creationism. In my mind, they are both equally wrong because neither of their theories have been tested or proven.

Religion is not a theory. It cannot be tested, therefore cannot become a theory. It is a belief system originally used as a form of government to control people through emotion, fear, and superstition.

 

[engineergurl]

Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.

I think some outspokenly atheistic scientists have started taking a hard line on the Big Bang Theory to counteract fundamentalist Christians that take a hard line on creationism. In my mind, they are both equally wrong because neither of their theories have been tested or proven.

Religion is not a theory. It cannot be tested, therefore cannot become a theory. It is a belief system originally used as a form of government to control people through emotion, fear, and superstition.

Or is that just your theory on it?

lmao, but really, the word theory has a different meaning in philosophy than in science so according to the English language, it can be a theory, just not a scientific theory.

 

[Lumber Jim]

I saw on "the big bang theory" that Leonard confirmed that we visited the moon by measuring the time it takes a laser beam to bounce off of a reflector placed at a specific location on the moon's surface.(you know, distance over time = velocity and with a known distance and known velocity you can theorize the flight time (X2) and then confirm it)

That show is based on science, isn't it?

or am I believing in the wrong thing?

(obviously they would need to simplify it a bit for T.V. since I don't remember them talking about the variables required to take the measurement in order to confirm the results so the variables must have already been factored in)

Does my response hold any less weight as a devout catholic that isn't always as devout as I should be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

 

[matt267 PE]

Yes, but can you write in your reference material with pencil?

 

[Lumber Jim]

Are you feeling like taking on some risk?

 

[matt267 PE]

 

[Road Guy]

I wonder what the effect space would have on measuring the distance from the earth to the moon with surveying chains?

 

[ptatohed]

I wonder what the effect space would have on measuring the distance from the earth to the moon with surveying chains?

lol. You wouldn't have to worry about the catenary!

 

[ptatohed]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-concludes

 

[matt267 PE]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-concludes

I need to hear this from Jenny McCarthy before I believe it.