₦airaland Forum

Nothingserious:
But someone will come here and claim science is purely empirical and objective. That’s a bogus and false claim.

Science and scientists are not one and the same thing, and using bad scientists to judge science is just plain lazy. Its the equivalent of using bad pastors to judge the Bible.

As some bad pastors have made the Bible a bad book and created opposers, so have some bad scientists given science a bad rap. I mean, see you disregarding all the achievements of science to concentrate on a few hoaxes while using the same scientific achievements to communicate it!

Have you not got electricity in your home, Nothing, and are you beating a drum to communicate with me over the long distance you are communicating over?

Science that is not empirical and objective is not science. If you build a house with it the rain will fall and the floods will come and the winds will blow and beat on your house and it will indeed fall because you had founded it on sand! Even faith that is not verified is useless, and those who have such faith tremble like demons.

Nothingserious:
I don’t understand . Is this your way of saying the article isn’t in science again?

Is that article on frauds in religion or sports?
Or on frauds on sciences?

I am saying the frauds are not science! Not one credible scientist could have possibly accepted any of them as scientific facts for long.

You are however welcome to show me scientists who did, after all, scientist me is unlikely to believe you and will require facts and evidence that I can verify gor myself.

Nothingserious:
See below SUBJECTIVITY ( not empirical) in decision making by scientists. By then Einstein was even no longer interested after waiting for long to use the money from the prize to settle his family issues.

What you've presented here is subjectivity in awarding a prize, and not subjectivity in the science itself.

The Nobel Prize is subjective by its very nature, and is not some body that defines scientific laws for the science community.

Nothingserious:
Here's a rundown of some of the biggest scientific frauds in history — at least, the ones that have been exposed:”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/articles/446787/10-most-incredible-scientific-hoaxes-all-time%3famp

Would you like to show me where these pranks are scientific laws please, or scientists who believe them?

Nothingserious:
If sciences are strictly empirical, then we wouldn’t have need for falsability in sciences.

Science is done by subjective human beings, and that is precisely why falsification is a significant aspect of science.

Basically, a scientist makes a claim and other scientist refuse to believe your claim and spend a lot of time and effort trying to prove your claim is false, which they wouldn't do if they believed you.

Now imagine a pastor making a claim and tell me what believers do. It might make you see the difference between scientists and believers, even if they both are religious people.

Below is James telling you to test your faith instead of building on the sand of belief. The deeds is how you build on rocks, which is what science helps you do.

Nothingserious:
Totally off point.

Are sciences done on strict empiricism and objectivity or are there elements of subjectivity in decisions on outcomes?

An individual might be subjective when doing science, and that might indeed determine their outcome, but other individuals are not guaranteed to have the exact same subjectivity and might have subjectivity of their own which may produce a different outcome and therefore not be a law.

Its why you provide scientific details of your experiment so others can see your method and replicate it. They will not replicate your subjectivity however, and if your experiment relys on your own subjectivity, your law will only apply to your very own subjective self.

Nothingserious:
Your guys claim science is strictly empirical as against religion and philosophy that has elements of subjectivity.

This is where your error stems from. You fail to realise that Jesus Christ, the scientific opener of eyes, was practically preaching science.

“The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

Whole body means, your heart and soul and mind and being, which, if in darkness will stop you being able to ask and knock and seek.

Science is also the lesson of Eve in Genesis 3, where we read she tested if she would indeed surely die on the day she ate the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, only to find she did not die, and that it was good for gaining wisdom, and went on to free herself and Adam from naked slavery in the Garden of Eden and became self employed and lived for another 800 or so years during which they populated the earth with billions of humans who are now using science to go and populated Mars.

Unfortunately, most would rather believe and tremble like stupid enslaved believing non-scientific ignorant Adam who would rather not ask and knock and seek. Thankfully, in time, we will surely evolve from Adams into Eves.

Nothingserious:
I asked whether there are any scientific proofs for all our scientific laws? There are none. We work on the ASSUMPTIONS that they are valid.

Sorry, Nothing, but you really don't know what you talk about.

Go through the thread and read Workch on the scientific method. It might help you understand science does not work with "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS" as you claim.

In fact, rigorous testing and verification needs to occur before other scientists accept anyone's scientific claims, and only after so doing are they accepted as laws with which actual physical things are built.

You wouldn't get very far building a simple phone on "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS", and if you built a house on "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS", the rain will fall and the floods will come and the winds will blow and beat on your house and it will indeed fall because you had founded it on sand!

You make it sound like not having sex will kill you, like it's oxygen you are being deprived of, but more important is if I need to be "telling us what the repect (sic) means in this context", then you are hardly mature enough to have a girlfriend not to talk of a wife.

Get a dictionary and look up 'respect' there please. Not only should you respect your wife, more important is that you respect yourself.

gbemishile:
ure just laying emphasis on respect without telling us what the repect means in this context
so if she says no,then it means a no.without u trying to giveme a good reason or try to make it up to me.i see better and more curvy ladies who crave my attention but i quickly rush home with intention that instead of me fornicating, would rather sleep with my wife,an then she tells me emphatically NO,without any valid reason or trying to make it up to me.a woman is going through a lot of changes doesnt leave out the man too.th very thought that we have to sleep with just one woman even when her body changes to how it once was is enough psychological issue on its own.ur opinion is not a good one for marriage abeg.

You keep convincing yourself that you are not the one lying. Good thing is most here don't rely on your blind eyes to observe what they can clearly see for themselves.

DissTroy:
The best strategy for Budaatum is to document his lies and keep quoting them.

He lied I edited the CRT Wikipedia article then backtracked.

He cries about racism but he's a self-confessed tribalist on Nairaland.

He asserted CRT doesn't view from race POV. Caught him then he claimed race is one of the POV.

He lied I have no issues with Confederate-flag-waving . I shamed him by proving I have never even been involved in that kind of topic.

He claimed the US is racist towards blacks and puts them down but he still can't prove how. Oddly, he still believes blacks in America are in Eldorado and Nigerians in Hades. All in the same America he claims puts down blacks.

Buda is a luna. Yes, it goes with"tic".

WispyEthereal:
the idiot that you are thinks I will continue to engage you in your deliberate stupidity to waste my time since you have all the time in the world to waste.

You really need to realise this when responding to them. Their sole intention is to waste your time just as they waste their's.

Mordecai:
Quit the ad hominem responses and respond to Tickles001.

You tell me that in your marriage, there is no sense of obligation and duty? That you are okay with your husband playing his part only when he feels like it? That if he decides to leave the house to live with a friend for 2 months just because he feels like it, you'd be okay with it?

You should stop misleading people.

My husband can not leave his wonderful amazing wife and go live elsewhere for two days not to talk of two months because he is a wonderful caring responsible man who cares for his family. He knows that peace in his home depends on him and he'd not do anything to jeorpadise it because he knows he would not only be destroying his own home, but also will negatively affect the welfare and future of his son and daughter and his own self as well as that of the wonderful amazing wife he married and immensely respects.

I guess you'd need to understand that I can not possibly have married an immature boy who's brain is in his pants.

Nothingserious:
Are you saying now that scientific laws are just proven by watching a cup drop and fall?
Are all the laws proven in a simple way as that?

The key point is experimentation, as opposed to believing what you think might happen to the cup without testing your belief.

And yes, that is how science is done. You test your assumed beliefs so that you may actually know.

Nothingserious:
Isn’t it the same way philosophical and religious experiences are observed? So we could lump all together and say they are verified same way.
I doubt that is all there is to empirical proofs for science.
That again is not a scientific proof for scientific law.

If you lump "philosophical and religious experiences" with scientific experimentation, serious people will not take you seriously at all.

In fact, religious experiences are not subject to scientific scrutiny, and if they were, belief is not the word you'd use to describe them. You would for instance never say, you believe your mother is your mother unless you are ignorant of whom your mother is. I am assuming you know who your mother is, of course. And after years of paying tithes so some pastor can fuel a plane, you are bound to recognise if it improves your own existence in earth or not. Unless you refuse to consider the evidence, of course.

Nothingserious:
Heinsberg, Niels Bohr, Aage Borh, Einstein all got Nobel Prizes in physics for conflicting works on matter and the atom. There were a lot of debates on whether matter come in discrete packets or in continuous forms.
Even same year Einstein and Bohr were awarded the prizes, they had heated debates on who was right yet the panel awarded both.

That's the beauty of science, and why I so love my Bible. At its time, it was all that was known, and just as the scientists above were recognised for moving knowledge further than it hitherto was, so too would I have awarded the Nobel to the Bible. That does not mean one should believe it, but recognise it is the shoulder of giants on which others have stood to see much further.

Nothingserious:
Many of the scientists BELIEVED one of their favorites was right. Even today, scientists BELIEVE in works of their contemporaries or their revered colleagues.

If they had believed, they would not have continued searching, just as religious believers think they know so stop asking and knocking and seeking. If they did continue seeking they'd be the salt of the earth instead of ignorant believers.

Nothingserious:
Can we strictly say science considerations at such levels and panels were strictly empirical without any other a priori or philosophical considerations? No we cannot. If they were, the panels would have come up with just a single decision.

Ask and knock and seek with all your heart and mind and being is not something that should stop. If it did, we'd be here banging drums to communicate with one another over the vast distance between us, and might forever remain naked and ignorant and in darkness like we are in Nigeria.

When we stop believing that which those who brought it to us have stopped believing, and instead ask and knock and seek till we understand, we will say, "Let their be Light", and Nigeria will enlighten the entire world.

In Jesus Mighty Name, Amen.

Nothingserious:
You could start by showing me any scientific law that has been scientifically proven.

Come on man! It is a scientific law, as in a law you can observe with your own senses, that if you drop a cup it will always engage with the floor. You can experiment a million times and your cup will always engage with the floor or whatever is beneath it.

It is the same use her own senses that Eve did and what freed her and her man from naked slavery in the Garden of Eden. Unfortunately, some are so afraid of dying that they cover their own eyes so they can not see.

Here is an example of ask and seek and knock with all your heart and mind. Note how it continues today, some trying to prove right and some wrong.

From last yesterday to first today.
A very awesome drive!

Streetpriest1:
Stop using the word *owe* Sex is a mutual thing and both parties deserve it. Women should try and satisfy their husbands. How many minutes Kwanu?

They intend to marry the equivalent of a sex doll that they can brutalise whenever and as many times as they wish, because no woman who respects herself will marry a pig.

gbemishile:
any woman who has this kind of mentality is doomed to fail in marriage
what exactly is your point?
Please her as in?
Ure a feminist for sure

So, in your own opinion, no woman who is respected by her man can have a successful marriage?

I'll tell you what. You will live long. Come back in 10 years time and tell me how successful your marriage is to a woman you do not respect.

DissTroy:
Okay. Long live the internet!



https://www.nairaland.com/6782892/jonathan-okowa-mentioned-pdp-presidential#106376654

You are hopefully aware that not all Igbos' "sole manifesto is the destruction of Nigeria so Biafra can exist", and that some are One Nigeria Igbos, though I doubt that qualification makes an ounce of difference to you.

Let me add to it for you. No sensible Igbo will win a national election in your lifetime with a Biafra manifesto. And if you find a serious Igbo seeking to be president or vice with such a manifesto, please do let me know because I personally have not found any credible Igbo or Yoruba politician seeking votes on such a destructive manifesto.

michigang:
I paid brideprice

So you bought your wife with the paltry sum you paid as brideprice and therefore assume you have the right to rape her?

I guess all I can say is you should consider having daughters so you can sell them too, though my love for women makes me wish you don't have any daughters at all.

Below is a book you should consider reading. It will cure you of your lack of knowledge.

Qatar2022:
Watching too much foreign movie is confusing you
I don't blame you till you got married

Lol for your assumption.

gbemishile:
ure not talking about the wife trying as much as possible to please the man sexually even without penetrataion.ure just of the opinion that once the wife isnt in the mood,then she has the right to decline entirely

Why should a wife be trying to please a man who does not respect her? If the man wanted pleasing, should he not be pleasing his wife first so she has no choice but to please him in return, or does the man expect to reap where he has not sown?

If the wife is not in the mood, then respect her. That will make her be in the mood in future.

Edavi234:
Like your dad and brother right?

Don't you think I'd clean my own home first before bothering about cleaning your's.

Thankfully, I didn't need to bother about cleaning mine since my father was a decent respecting man who brought his son and daughter up in his own image.

I got the below from him.

Susily:
There's nothing like spousal rape under the Nigerian law

So please go ahead and rape your wife in Nigeria, but I'd strongly advise you get yourself a food taster if you expect her to continue cooking your meals because sniper is very cheap in Nigeria and is easily disguised in food.

DissTroy:
Like J.K. Rowling being canceled and banned for saying transgender shouldn't be allowed into women's bathrooms and women need to be protected from them. Like Chimamanda Adichie being banned from speaking on campuses for distinguish women's rights from trans rights.

You'd think the right would be pleased these two anti-trans feminists are cancelled.

Thankfully, both are speaking where it matters, and being paid well for it. JKR unfortunately writes too young for me but there isn't yet an Adichie I have not bought 5 of. Her Half a Yellow Sun is considered by me to be the antidote to Nigeria Falling Apart, and will force us to eventually critic the stupid "no conquered no vanquish" policy that Nigeria adopted and which is so anti critical tribe theory in the way it swept atrocities against Igbos under the rug. When CTT gets in vogue, those atrocities will hopefully be addressed. Her Purple Hibiscus is like CBP, as in, Critic of Bad Parenting, so people will learn what type of parent one should consider not being.

Now, if only she were Igbo I'd bi-marry her myself, even if it means I got to share her with her husband.

benalvino3:
We will soon award you with a victim medal. In Nigeria you cry victim, in the UK you cry victim. I am sure if you they send you to the moon you will still cry victim.

You keep convincing yourself that drumptfk is president. No one sensible believes you ben.

DissTroy:
Maybe. But he was sarcastic about it given the wordings and his emojis.

Still, I'd always point out how hypocritically ironic it is that you play the victims' game about racism in America daily but you are a self-confessed sectionalist and tribalist who has declared the Igbos - who are as Nigerian as any of us - should "never be allowed to become president".

First, I don't bother about your "Igbos - who are as Nigerian as any of us - should "never be allowed to become president", because everyone knows you are just lying. It is those who wish to split Nigeria that should and can never be president and that includes those asking for Oduduwa republic too. Not sll Igbos wish to destroy Nigeria, and Soludo is currently winning my heart.

Second, you claiming "buda playing victim" shows you don't know buda at all. Buddhism places your life and your destiny in your very own hands.

But I do not expect any of this to open your eyes just as your eyes have remained shut to the education you have received about CRT, which you see as telling others to be victims, when it is actually an attempt to describe what happens so people can be empowered.

Yes, he was being sarcastic, he would claim, but he was showing the mentality of those he shares opinion with.

Nothingserious:
Ask, seek and knock is what every human basically does. That’s what people do in religion. That’s what people do in philosophy.

So this method of science is really no different from our religious style.
Can you then conclude that science and religion use same investigative tools of ask, seek and knock?

I was hoping you would realise I am taking it from religion, Christianity, to be precise, so you might note that I am calling the person who said it, a scientist. But it unfortunately is not what most religious people do, for most believe without asking and knocking and seeking, as in, without testing what they claim to believe. Its precisely why someone is written to have ridiculed belief by claiming its a thing [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202%3A19&version=NIV]demons and do that makes them tremble[/url]. Basically, they build their faith on untested sand.

If, or rather, when religious people, Nigerian religious people I mean, learn to ask and knock and seek instead of merely believing as we currently do, we will say, "Let there be Light", and there will be Light.

Nothingserious:
“Sometimes, when people say "science requires faith", what they are trying to get at is the idea that scientists have to rely on assumptions that they can't prove.

If they can't prove it, no amount of faith will possibly make it true. Take the cup I've asked you to drop for instance. I have faith that if you drop a cup it would not float in air.

The builders of the Apollo had faith that it would get to the moon and back. Their faith was based on the knowledge they had of building and testing quite a lot of Apollos prior to the one that landed on the moon instead of merely believing the first one would land on the moon and return to earth.

I'll check your link later.

DissTroy:
Emotional lots. Exactly why blacks are the way we are - emotional responses instead of rationally addressing our issues.

I'm certain you are referring to your constant emotional responses which make you prone to insults in just about every one of your posts instead of rationally addressing issues.

And no, it's not because you are black, but simply because you lack the maturity for rational discourse, though I must admit you are not as bad as the donkey.

Nothingserious:
I don’t think you have any scientific proof for scientific laws. There are none. You don’t have to argue it if there are any. You could point that out to us.

Perhaps a definition of science might help you. I propose it means "ask, knock, seek with all your senses".

Now, drop a cup and tell me you do not observe the law that states, 'if you drop something it will fall to the ground'.

Nothingserious:
Why didn’t they get same results from same experiments?

They obviously did not perform the exact same experiment, though I better wait for you to get your facts straight regarding who this father and son are.

Nothingserious:
Do you mean to say something empirically tested and proven could turn out to be wrong tomorrow?

Empirical means, 'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic'.

Yes. Prior knowledge might have been flawed. The equipment to observe might have been limited. The test itself might have been flawed, as could be the understanding of that which is observed, etc.

One can not expect human observation or experience to be constant, which is why Genesis 1 is superseded flawed 'science', and why scientists are constantly asking and knocking and seeking, as in, doing science, instead of believing as you claim.

Nothingserious:
So is it safe to say that scientists BELIEVED certain Newtonian theories were valid before but now BELIEVE Einstein’s are better? Shouldn’t empirical data be constant?

It is indeed safe to say some scientists 'believed' Newtonian theories were valid before Einsteins, but anyone who experienced what you call a belief in Newton would be silly to now believe Einstein since Einstein too might be proven to be not so valid as first thought. Or don't you expect scientists to learn from what they observe in the past?

Einstein was a scientist, and he obviously did not believe Newton, which is why he sought and knocked and asked. Once you believe, you'd assume you know, and would therefore not continue to ask and knock and seek.

DissTroy:
But to examine the economic position from ONLY a racial point of view is flawed in itself.

Only ignorons, and qnots, think CRT "examine[s] the economic position from ONLY a racial point of view". The thought that Marxists will abandon all the things Marxists critique to just focus on race is, well, silly, and naive.

CRT does not only examine the economic position of a racial group, but also their social position. As in, can a black person be shot for jogging, and why.