It is very likely that something was wrong with the suction pump. This particular pool was 2 metres deep. The deepest part was in the middle.
The 14-year-old described her sister as being dragged into the middle of the pool. That suggests that there was a suction vortex. If the suction settings are wrong, or malfunctioning, a huge amount of pressure can occur at the suction pump outlet.

If there is a slope and it is difficult to get purchase on the bottom of the pool, you can imagine a person becoming sucked in and entrapped. If they are freed after they become unconscious, the rescuer could be the next to become entrapped...and so on...

Here is a video of the actual pool.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhlGnaVREzE

Here is an investigator's advice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru06LVxDYic

Pool pump suction demonstration.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EXfSb2KEHk

I came across this interesting quote:

"Morality is what you do when you think nobody is looking."

I took it to mean that fake morality is what you do when you think people are watching you, but your real morality is what you do when you think nobody is looking.

It all fits into the idea of religious morality -- where "god" sees everything -- being fake morality.

This is known as the teleological question in evolution.

There is ZERO scientific evidence that evolution is "UNDIRECTED".

Any such statement, THAT EVOLUTION IS "UNDIRECTED", in the definition of the theory of evolution is pure conjecture.

On the contrary, even science is accruing mounting evidence that evolution is "DIRECTED".

The half-cocked defence against directedness is the mantra "remember all this took millions of years". This argument is used to convince gullible laypeople who have a weak idea of the real issue.

"Millions of years", or even "billions of years", may be a long time, but that has to be balanced against the huge number of molecular changes required to convert a replicating molecule into a human, and the vanishingly small success rate of each such incremental change. Which one wins? That is the question evolutionists avoid while they misguide laypeople.

The evidence is that the number of changes required, and their frequency of success, requires far more than billions of years to have done the job "UNDIRECTED", and simply through the bumbling processes of random molecular motion.

Ubenedictus:
faith for Catholics isn't unscientific, it takes of where science leaves off, it is not opposed to science, it transcends it

Science, itself, IS FAITH BASED. Unlike mathematics, which postulates it axioms, science ASSERTS its axioms.

In mathematics, axioms are viewed as initial ASSUMPTIONS.

In science, axioms are treated as FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS. They are DOGMA. Science is founded on FAITH in DOGMA.

As you can see from this thread, it is pointless arguing with people who are brainwashed by the DOGMA of science. All they do is repeat the dogma, while lacking insight into them. They don't address the issues because they cannot -- they lack the background and insight to know what the issue is, or realize that they are spewing DOGMA. Hence their incessant repetition and regurgitation of science PR.

As soon as you assert initial ASSUMPTIONS as "TRUTHS", you have crossed the line into FAITH, and that is what modern science has done.

PastorAIO:
This link might help bring things back on course:

https://www.kialo.com/can-faith-and-science-co-exist-10223/10223.0=10223.1/=10223.1

Why? Where does faith come into it?

A very relevant question is, "what do we mean by science?" If the definition is too loose, then science can lay claim to all progress in human deliberation.

So I asked, "do animals do science?"

Animals investigate, experiment and learn, too, but is it science? I say not. Science is not just "tinkering" or trial and error. It is narrower than that. It excludes as "invalid" certain modes and patterns of observation. The justification for this exclusion is a value judgment, not rigorous logic. The question is how good a value judgment it is. What, if anything, do we sacrifice or compromise in this narrowing of outlook?

"Tinkering" is not science, but many technological discoveries have come about almost by accident. Inquisitiveness, tinkering and alertness have been the important factors, rather than any attempt to find uniform, underlying principles of the "universe". Often the proceeds of the "scientifically invalid" tinkering make their way into technology long before a scientifically satisfactory explanation has been agreed upon. Science cannot retrospectively call such discovery "science" just because they become viewed as "useful" and "progressive". Yet, that is what it tends to do. It is a circular and empty argument which arbitrarily defines science as "progress". The value judgment that is supposed to give science its credibility is based on some hyped, romanticized and contorted history of delivering utility

Since we have measured the value and credibility of science based on its perceived history of delivering utility, we also have to examine that "utility". You cannot divorce science from human morals and ethics, since its status and credibility comes from its history of satisfying moral and ethical requirements. What if science is just pandering to an evil nature?

killsmith:
nobody has time to massage your ego. I asked you to give an example of a system that is inconsistent. You said the set of rational numbers as a group under multiplication. I want to know how "a system consisting of the rational numbers as a group under the operation of multiplication is inconsistent" as you claim. Can you give a logical proof that a superset of the set of rationals is inconsistent? You cannot just make claims and be dodging....

2 x 0 = 1 x 0

Group axiom: Every element of a group has an inverse. Let 0^-1 be the multiplicative inverse of 0.

Multiply both sides by 0^-1

(2 x 0) x 0^-1 = (1 x 0) x 0^-1

Use distributive axiom

2 x (0 x 0^-1) = 1 x (0 x 0^-1)

Use inverse axiom

2 x 1 = 1 x 1

Use identity axiom

2 = 1

but 2 is not 1 by definiton

so we have statement A, i.e 2 = 1

and we have NOT statement A i.e 2 not = 1

i.e

NOT (A AND NOT(A))

CONTRADICTION as I said.

To the layman it is presented as "you can't divide by zero".

To the mathematician, it is "the rationals numbers do not form a group under multiplication"

killsmith:
I honestly want to think you're mistaking inconsistency for incompleteness. If you are, then it'd mean you've been rambling all the while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency

The syntactic definition states a theory T is consistent if and only if there is no formula phi such that both phi and its negation not phi are elements of the set T

That's what I wrote in short hand, if you replace A by phi.

We're done as I predicted. You are in way over your head.

killsmith:
what is consistency? And how is the set of rational numbers inconsistent?

In first order logical systems, the rule NOT (A AND NOT(A)) defines consistency.

I didn't say that the set of rational numbers is inconsistent.

I said that a system consisting of the rational numbers as a group under the operation of multiplication is inconsistent.

Did you understand any of the above?

killsmith:

Be patient. You're going to stumble anytime soon

As long as you don't get into repeating soundbites ad nauseam, and you have an understanding of what you are saying, we'll be fine.

If you just repeat at me what you have been told, but don't know enough to answer questions and critique the topic, then discussion will be worthless.

killsmith:
"if a system conforms to logic", isn't a mathematical system rooted in logic?

Mathematical systems are based (rooted) on axioms and logic.

killsmith:
Is it impossible for a consistent system to show or exhibit contradictions and ambiguities?

No.

The system defines what a "contradiction" or "ambiguity" is. If its logic allows them then they are consistent with the system.

killsmith:
Can you name a mathematical system that doesn't have a set of axioms and rules, as its base?

Already answered. See above.

killsmith:
In simple words, give an example of an inconsistent system.

The rational numbers as a group under multiplication.

killsmith:
logical inconsistencies? Kindly Explain this term.

I can already tell from your posts that we are not going to get very far in a discussion.

If a system conforms to a logic, it is logically consistent. If not, it is logically inconsistent.

vaxx:
i can see you could not make sense of it, just like you denied objective evidence throw at you.

My opinion though , you may discard it. Go relearn all what you claim as a fact. No academia will take you serious with this line of thought . You sound more like an apologetic rather than educationist.

My background is in mathematics. It is abstract. It doesn't have this problem that science has.

The shrillest advocates of the scientific method are those who know little about it. Real scientists are far more cautious, but unfortunately, many dare not talk in public.

The rise of academia in India is going to be a game changer. They are more willing to discuss things that have become taboo in the West. Brainwashed folks like yourself, will then be able to follow follow..

vaxx:
To stand in denial of scientific principle in 2018 is clearly an act of ignorance . Already I have ended the discussion? Why sbouild i allow this baiting to continue.

Yep. Typical logic. Scientific principles are truth because 2018.

I advise you to go and develop your critical faculties and come up with real substantive debate, instead of your posturing.

killsmith:
Holding science back from what? Where is science heading to?

It's in something of a crisis right now, with experiments in Quantum Theory creating, for the first time, FUNDAMENTAL LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES, in science.

I think our discussion is coming to an end and you are going round in circles.

vaxx:
I am simply asking you wish of this process undergo in peer review method you are discarding? Your opinion was "" have I involve in this research particularly myself to validate how it work""?you went on to bring a scenario of an individual which findings was rejected base on political reason...... and I ask you? Since you of this opinion how do you determine if peer review is not universally true or what method of the process are you discarding?

It only takes one counterexample to prove that something cannot work universally. When I gave an example you said that you were not interested in that type of argument. This was your illogical response:

vaxx:
I don't see this as a good debate using one individual as model of defence, what about the numerous scientific research that had being published and it's accepted on merit. I am not really interested in this kind of argument, it is baseless.

You are not genuinely open to discussion. So there is no point discussing further.

vaxx:
I already told you, I am simply a student.....

Again, you are evasive. Being a student does not answer the question of whether you have direct personal experience of peer review. Why write nine evasive words instead of a simple "yes" or "no" answer? You are deliberately being evasive.

vaxx:
something that has been peer review means it has scienctifc backup and can be trusted.

Here you go again, repeating your opinion instead of explaining what it is based on.

vaxx:
The word Fact you are using here is ambiguous. Even people with noble laurel have seen their work discredited . That is the beauty of science, it can easily falsify itself. People who normally refuse to publish thier work are those who are afraid of scientific scrutiny.

More repetition and arbitrary assertions. No explanation.

vaxx:
This is fallacy at best, let me make you understand something .. Most of us, I mean most of the time, are to some extent a scientist. I.E. Your car won’t move. You Hypothesize that something is wrong. You gather information - the keys aren’t in the ignition, or their is a ‘boot’ on your tire, or the gas gauge is on E. You redress the hypothesized issue - filling the gas tank, puting the key in the ignition and turning it, paying your fines. You check your Hypothesis validity by seeing if your car will move now, if not you return to observing why the car may not move (oops, forgot that this car had its battery stolen) and test that observed possible cause of the issue, and so on, until you got the car moving. This is all what science is all about.

Repetition. The point has been addressed. You are clearly not reading and understanding the answers.

vaxx:
Another fallacious claim, I recently told you, I learn , read and practice. You need to have enough evidence of me before you can make any assumptions of me.

I have enough evidence about you from the way you reply. Your ideas are virtually a carbon copy of the popular responses laypeople have been programmed to make.

vaxx:
Do i need to make claim in my corner room for you to understand I am not a novice of scientific discipline....

You have to be more than "not a novice" to understand the depth of this topic.

vaxx:
science is a method not a believe. Only the person using science can be consider immoral or moral ...religious is a believe system....bro where do you dig this logic out?

I have explained this already.

vaxx:
false.. if there were no mechanism in the program of this universe. it would not have exist. ( you may even be arguing against religion here)The laws of physics that we understand so far show us that the change in value of a single one of them would cause the current universe to cease to exist.

The problem is that this discussion belongs in philosophy.

What you are doing is the very common mistake of trying to critique science from within science. Even Richard Dawkins started out naively trying to do this, but eventually he got clued up and realized that the questions were way deeper than he thought.

vaxx:
why are you so close minded?

I could call that an "ad hominem ATTACKKKK"

But I won't. You see, I can tell that it is your honest opinion relating to how YOU see my argument. For me, that is fine in an argument. I do the same thing.

vaxx:
I am tempted to say you might not really be whom you claim. Your point is hogwash, I give reasons as to why it is. You can hold fallacious claim as point and think you have a fact, how do you even validate or verify your own claim. I want to know? And let's put this method into scrutiny.

i think your best question should be ""those animal use scientific experiment"" You can't ask an error questions on its own? ". Well it has not crossed my mind before, but now that you mention it, yes I think you could say some animals use scientific method. Crows, for example, are very good problem-solvers. Other animals as well are good at experimenting, and evaluating the results of their problem-solving attempts. The only thing missing is verbatim.

I am not sure what you are typing on, but your grammar is coming out confusing. Your definition of science means that we are talking at cross-purposes in any case.

As for closed-mindedness, you may think that you are writing stuff I have not heard before. I have heard almost everything you are writing. It is the automatic response of hundreds and hundreds of layfolk. I have seen it on many forums, like masses of programmed folk who don't or can't discuss enough of the nitty-gritty of science and philosophy of science.

I carried out one experiment, on several forums dedicated to discussing the theory of evolution. I did a search on those forums for the word "mutation" which is a key concept in theory of evolution (Neo-Darwinian ToE). I typically got 200 search results. Then I did a search for the word "spaghetti", and I got MORE results than for "mutation". Thanks to Richard Dawkins, more people were yammering on about flying spaghetti monsters than arguing the science and talking about mutation. That is not debate. If you try to get into scientific debate with most of these jokers, they turn out to be ignorant clowns. (I later had a thought and searched for "spagetti" without the "h". I got even more results than for "spaghetti"...then I spelled it with one "t" and more hits spewed forth... jeez!)

vaxx:
So my argument is this, which of this process is not universally true and how can a novice(That you claim I am) be enlightened about them. Ensure your proposition is base on verifiable evidence? If not I will treat this argument as one of those who argue in cycle.

I can't make sense of what you mean be a process being "true".

Are you asking which of the peer review METHODS you mentioned is "not accepted" everywhere?

I am not sure what you are getting at.

vaxx:
i just told you, I am just a mere student who is open and willing to learn.

What I wish to know is if you have any direct personal experience with peer review.

vaxx:
I don't see this as a good debate using one individual as model of defence, what about the numerous scientific research that had being published and it's accepted on merit. I am not really interested in this kind of argument, it is baseless.

You are mischaracterizing an example as a "model of defence".

I think that you are missing the point, which is that saying that something has been "peer reviewed" does not automatically mean that it should be accepted as fact. I gave an extreme example, but there is a sliding scale.

The upshot is that you have to be personally skilled to some extent in the field in order to assess its credibility. And to appreciate the credibility of science as a whole, you need to be aware of the human factors.

YES, YOU KEEP REPEATING YOUR POINT THAT HUMAN FACTORS ARE 'NOT THE FAULT' OF SCIENCE.

THE POINT IS THAT YOU ARE ASSESSING THE SUCCESS AND CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE THROUGH THE LENS OF HUMAN REPORTING.

SO I AM SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO BE CLOSER THAN THAT TO SCIENCE, AND HAVE A DEEPER PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING THAN THAT, IN ORDER TO ASSESS THE SUCCESS AND CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE AS A FRAMEWORK.

vaxx:
This is not always true . They have been well sponsored research on the use of alcohol and cigarettes despite their economic importance . And this research does not favour government at all. Well, quite agree with you, it is possible for government to block or close down access to scientific research if it has enormous effect on goverment economic potential, this act of immoral from the goverment and not science itself. Science does not meant to be immoral, it is society (political herachy) that acted immoral. Science suppose to be free and fair. You should have it in mind that I said earlier that is society that determine what is immoral or moral. As science is neutral.

No. As I said above, this is a fallacy. Perhaps you can see the fallacy when applied to religion. The fact that religious acts are carried out by fallible humans is not a logical argument for saying that religion is morally neutral. You have to examine what the religion is SAYING.

So, I am asking you to go back to earlier posts where I talk about what science is SAYING. To crudely paraphrase, the scientific method is encouraging us to pay attention ONLY to what we can take control over and exploit. That is why science looks for mechanistic behaviour, and DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF NON-MECHANISTIC BEHAVIOUR. It does so arbitrarily. There is no logic that proves that the universe is mechanistic. It is a value judgment based on a need to control the universe. THAT IS WHERE MY MORAL ARGUMENT COMES FROM.

vaxx:
science is a Latin word which means knowledge, trying to put a date and time constraint into when science begin is a fallacy on it is own, ""knowledge is as old as the universe"" Science was not invented or created. It just happened over time. The human is by nature curious and at first looked for better ways to form hunting weapons, harness fire, track animals…the list is endless all this are element of science that we evolve to learn by observation. Later, we found ways to uncover the secrets of nature through experimentation. We developed glass, curved it and looked at the microscopic world through the microscope and the stars through the telescope and so on. Well it will make sense if you it started at the big bang.

Again, you are engaging in rather shallow repetition of accolades for science.

I addressed this distinction between research and science earlier. Instead of addressing my points, you have listed a standard popular response, which doesn't get to the point.

Read my earlier post again. Are animals doing science because they evolve knowledge? That is not my use of the word "science". I am talking about a deliberate enterprise that asserts that the universe is mechanistic and seeks to uncover that "mechanism".

vaxx:
scientific research is base on empirical evidence and anything that can be measure or determined with our objective eyes anything other than that is not science. Science does not claim he had answer to everything. Science is a tool just like hammer, it might not be good for sawing.... Science already admit it's own error, it can not exploit anything outside objective verified evidence. It is not a position of ignorance but a position of intellectual. It has been tested overtime and it works.

You are going round in circles repeating yourself. You don't seem to realize that all you are doing is using self-referential words. You cannot test the viability of science by insisting on scientific evidence, alone. It is circular. It is no different from a religious person insisting on the bible to validate his religion.

And you equivocate. "Admission of error" is a human act. But you have already separated human act from the nature of science. Now that it pleases you, you claim "honesty" as a advantage of science.

vaxx:
This is what science is asking for, bring out the objective verified evidence and let's put it into test, if it is not objective/empirical. Take it away from me.

No, my definition of proof is evidence on objective verified fact. Science is not about proof but about evidence. There is difference between the two.

You are not the first person to be caught in that circular loop with a passion.

vaxx:
Not a bad idea. But what about taking up the pratical aspect of it.

You can test the evidence yourself.

Options may be limited, but "I cannot practically test this personally" does not validate the argument "it is true because a human institutional authority told me so." It is better to admit you simply don't know.

Look at human nature in general. Scientists are not that much different.

I once had a similar argument with a magazine editor. In his eyes writers and historians are special people who have special integrity and behave better than the average.

vaxx:
Argument ad hominem fallacy, instead of you to attack the argument you claimed is not universally true, you are now attacking my own personality. I ask what are this process of peer review you consider untrue or what are this process you yourself as engage on so as to validate you are talking from position of authority. (.i am just a mere student who is seeking knowledge).

For me to claim that you clearly are not familiar enough with peer review is not "an attack on your personality". It is not an "attack" at all. Nobody is familiar with every walk of life.

Peer review is a process whereby a body of work, like a research paper or thesis, is checked for quality, substance and accuracy by a panel of peers, who are active in the field. It is generally an iterative process, where corrigenda and suggestions are decided upon by the panel for consideration, and the work is resubmitted until it is accepted in full or rejected.

I used to be (but am not any more) a researcher in the field of Fluid Dynamics, specifically in relation to meteorology. However, most of my experience of doing peer review came from referrals from other departments like biology. Biologists often had to refer to mathematicians for correct statistical modeling and interpretation of their experiments.

vaxx:
i never knew where you get this from, I read , I learn and I practice....this is enough evidence to claim this validity, you are talking to a stranger you know, never assume anything directly from your side about me without having the necessary evidence.

OK. Let me ask. What is your experience in scientific research?

I have given you examples of peer reviewed research accessible to both of us. In the case of Andrew Wakefield, who suggested the possibility of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, his research was peer reviewed and accepted in one of the most prestigious medical journals, The Lancet.

Subsequently, because of the political impact of his research (people losing confidence in MMR and the government vaccination project), two things happened

1. Government engineered a pretext to have him removed from practice. They claimed that he did not have proper parental consent in carrying out his research, and that he was not qualified to carry out the research that he did. The first pretext does not invalidate the science in his research. The second pretext is suggesting that the peer review process is seriously flawed, if the research of an "unqualified" person can pass review for one of the most prestigious medical journals.

2. But then there was also a campaign to attack his methodology and the statistical results of his research. For example, there were claims that the sample size wasn't large enough to obtain significance. All this had already been peer reviewed. So how would such serious supposed basic flaws pass review for one of the most prestigious medical journals?

The problem with vaccination research is obvious. If the public are allowed to scrutinize the research, significant numbers of people may opt out of vaccination, affecting the threshold for a measure of vaccine effectiveness known as "herd immunity". To protect that threshold, governments interfere with the research and peer review process.

Another problem I know about from personal experience as a researcher is in application for research grant. These are often government grants, issued annually. It would be very naive to assume that the government will fund OPEN research that conflicts with government policy. The government would want such research to be CLOSED to outside scrutiny in order to protect the political and economic factors that are part of policy. A public example of that was the research done by Professor Nutt (whom I mentioned in an earlier post). He wasn't silenced, but he lost his position and funding for publicising his research.

vaxx:
it is not today politician have been hijacking scientific research to mitigate on their society and it is not today scientist research has been influencing political decision positively as well. Politicians had the control power, they can influence be it anything....it is not about immoral in science, it is about immoral in society. This is why i say society determine what is immoral or moral. If you abreast with scientific finding which I doubt, you will realise the politicians often decide who get more payed base on what society demands. For instance, .it is well known that much more money is allocated towards research for women's health issues than for men's health issues, even though women already have the higher life expectancy to that of men but because society has the inherent interest of women, it has become a factor.

The highlighted is where we are in dispute.

Humans are inquisitive creatures. We have been researching for as long as we have existed on Earth -- long before anything we call science. We observe our environment and we interact according to our observations. Most animals do the same thing. It is not enough to call it science. Even medicine has existed long before science. Even animals self-medicate. We don't call it science.

Scientific research is a particular kind of research that values a particular type of outcome in isolation of any other paradigm. It postulates a mechanistic world. This means that only certain types of research and outcome are valued by science. It is a narrowing down of research at large. It is an injection of IGNORANCE.

vaxx:
As I said earlier both influence each other, it will be very unhealthy to any society if research conducted shows evidence of castastrophy and the politicians decided to hijack it for political gain. Yes it happens, I am not denying it but this is not science as it is base on mediocrity. A progressive society like Europe have a consensus agreement on global warming apart from that of America which is influence by Donald trump polity.

(Man! The politicking in this area is one reason I am so glad I got out of weather research. You can find yourself having to toe the line or your career is toast.)

International laws curbing environmentally unfriendly emissions makes it difficult for emerging economies to industrialize as quickly as Europe did. So, there is a huge economic and political incentive for some geographies to support such laws. Europe's progressiveness on the issue is more or less incidental. The strategy is to keep other countries at bay.

vaxx:
You were able to discover it was base on pseudoscience because geniue fact spring out. Politicians had sometime influence pseudoscience for thier own political gain. It is common and it happen. But this is not science.....

LOL!!

I've seen this kind of argument so many times.

They ask you for evidence and proof.

If you supply it, they say, "see, science eventually led to the truth".

If you supply it without widely acknowledged proof, they say, "it is all conspiracy".

The problem is obvious: if your definition of proof is "what the authorities say", then you cannot prove that the authorities are doing anything wrong. You are in a position where you just have to believe what you are told.

Your only proper alternative is to read up and understand the subject matter in sufficient depth that you can separate genuine research from politics and machinations, and make your own, more deeply informed decision.

budaatum:

Go read up on Professor Wakefield too. "Probably valid" does not accurately describe his position!

Ian Lipkin, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said: "If Vaxxed had been submitted as science fiction, it would merit attention for its story line, character development and dialogue. But as a documentary it misrepresents what science knows about autism, undermines public confidence in the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and attacks the integrity of legitimate scientists and public-health officials".

Anyone is free to talk nonsense in America. Their President does it like 10 times a day!

Once again, you are just quoting what people say, without referring to any understanding of what the claims and issues are.

"Soundbites" is what they call it.

When you assess things you should look at all sides of the issue, and not assume one side is ALL "conspiracy", and the another side is ALL "legitimate". We are talking about human institutions with all their attendant flaws and deviance.

A interesting issue that would not have come to light but for the Vaxxed lobby is that no study has been done comparing rates of autism among populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The claim that "no link has been found" is easy to make if you are not looking for one.

Other interesting fact concerns the differential treatment of vaccination damage cases compared to other medication. Pharmaceutical companies have indemnification against claims of damage. The taxpayer pays.

Another issue was the use of inactive vaccine substrate as a placebo in vaccine tests, instead of say the normal sugar solution. This meant that damage caused by the substrate (which has in the past contained substances like mercury and aluminium) would not show a difference between the placebo and test groups. Also, they use in the analysis safe concentrations limits determined for adults and apply them to babies with undeveloped immune systems.

So, just as you have to listen to scientists to find holes poked in claims by the anti-vaccine lobby, the same is the case for finding spin and holes in the science.

EDIT: Oh, I see, you've joined the idiocy brigade. Don't bother replying. I won't be reading.

budaatum:

You are either being intentionally dishonest, or you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Science, and society in general, learnt not to do what you're suggesting was done here way back in the 16th century with the likes of Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Copenicus. You might want to read up on them.

You are joking. Nobody can be this naive.

Either way, joking or naive, discussion has become useless.

budaatum:

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a discredited former British doctor who became an anti-vaccine activist. He was a gastroenterologist until he was struck off the UK medical register for unethical behaviour, misconduct and fraud. In 1998 he authored a fraudulent research paper claiming that there was a link between the administration of the polyvalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.

Note that he was struck off from the UK medical register (it is run by his peers) for "unethical behaviour, misconduct and fraud". More evidence of the importance of ethics in his field, I'd say!

His peers removed his work after substantial political pressure. That is not evidence of ethics. It is evidence of politics.

You should base your opinion at the very least on what he claims and what the counterarguments are.

You are suggesting that it is mere "coincidence" that his claims were politically sensitive?

In the US, research linking MMR to autism was doctored by removing positive results from the African American community, allowing the link could be "disproved". That's one reason people should pay attention and not act the clown like LordReed the gullible.

budaatum:
Professor David Nutt was dismissed from his ACMD position by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson. Explaining his dismissal of Nutt, Alan Johnson wrote in a letter to The Guardian, that "He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy. [...] As for his comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political rather than a scientific point."

As in, dismissed for not doing the job his employer paid him to do!

Yes. But all he did was to publish peer reviewed science. So what didn't his employer and the likes of Alan Johnson (who are not on the peer review panel) like about that?

vaxx:
then what does this process of peer review you work with? And how do you objectively verify that it does not work

far from it. Peer review can be objectively verified and if by so doing you called it a mantra and i will like to see the process that state otherwise. This online ""anybody"" from its corner room can provide anything . Let's see what you call understanding and put it on the basis of objectively verified evidence.

I think you talk carelessly

Well, I can see that you are talking about a process you clearly don't understand, you have not been involved in, yet you believe in with a passion.

It is a mantra, because you are repeating what you have been told, without have anything in the way of direct experience.

vaxx:
This is one of the problems with you guys because an idea went wrong somewhere therefore it justify every other purpose or what the idea is meant for is consider untrue. Are sure you not repeating the same mantra I found people like you doing...

You misunderstand. I am not saying that his idea "went wrong". I am saying that his paper was probably valid, but was removed for political reasons, and the authorities in his field (of which he used to be a leading practitioner) tried to silence him by stripping him of his license to practise, for political, not scientific, reasons. He escaped to the US, where he was more free to speak. If you follow the discourse that is happening in the US, you will come across not just one case, but several cases of doctors and researchers who have talked about the pressure they have been under to conform and shut up. Far from validating research, the peer structure is hijacked to enforce political conformance.

Another field is "global warming". You paymasters, as with most research, are governments. The whole system ends up serving political ends.

Look at the tomfoolery that happened at CERN, with the Large Hadron Collider. It was complete fakery, with all the big names willingly taking part. The status of the Higg's Boson is still "unproven", but they used media spin and chicanery to mislead the public. It's all about money and justification of public expenditure for the upgraded collider. The most interesting aspect was to see all the celebrated physicists taking part in the pretence.

vaxx:
i will give you a countless number of truth in science but that should not derail this thread. Science truth itself can be universally accepted if so wish because Science has one cool and unique feature compared to any other source of truthe searching

It is self-correcting!

If you are wrong, there is this thing called peer-review....

Yes, yes, yes... I have actually been involved in peer review. What is your qualification to speak on the matter?

You are repeating a heap of things that can be googled on "popularized science". When I read what you write, it reads like a mantra, almost verbatim, what has been drummed into some people's heads by the likes of Richard Dawkins, but which you don't really understand. It is not an argument. It is a mantra.

Your idea of peer review is so naive.

Take vaccines, for example. Did you read what happened to Andrew Wakefield, whose work was published in the respected Lancet and then removed after a political storm? He was stripped of his license to practise, too.

In many fields, peer review doesn't work. People are too afraid to lose their jobs. A couple or notable examples are Andrew Wakefield and Professor Nutt (who published a paper on the relative harm of cannabis and other drugs.)

LordReed:


I don't think you properly understand how technological products are created.

On the contrary. You have a very naive understanding, probably from watching too many Hollywood films.

LordReed:
Your airplane example is proof. Aerodynamic theories have been studied as far back as Aristotlean times so you may need to go back and reevaluate what you think you know.

You mean check my notes on Fluid Dynamics from my undergraduate Mathematics course at University of Cambridge in the UK? No. I don't think i need to do that. I think I understand much more about it than you do.

Your vague reference to "Aristotlean times" (sic) is the stab-in-dark "argument" of somebody who knows very little.

I was a researcher at the Meteorological Office in London, if you need to know a little about my background on this. Admit it, your own knowledge is based on vague hearsay that you have no ability to verify or understand in any depth.

Even something as simple as the swing of a cricket ball is STILL not properly understood, even though it is much simpler than a model for the lift of an aircraft. It is a very complex field and theory is far behind experimental observation.

LordReed:
Lots of proof, easy one off the top of my head: germ theory of disease.

And what is your best specific historical example of how that has helped.

Do you know how many people I have spoken with who have responded with your ever so predictable examples? It makes me wonder just how deeply people think about the question.

budaatum:

Science allows you to communicate with me over a distance way further than you would have been able to do by shouting. Is that a "failure" and an "ailment" that only serves your "control freakery" need to communicate with me?

Ignoring your egocentric perspective, the fact is that you are anonymous, as far as I am concerned. I am not really communicating with you, per say. I am just broadcasting to anybody reading this thread. If communication in our local communities had not broken down the way they generally have in towns and cities, I would not be broadcasting. I would be having a connection and much more meaningful conversation with somebody less anonymous. It is the erosion of those connections and of related community cohesion that is the failure, for which the internet is part and parcel.

Now tell me, link me to the last topic and post where internet discussion has educated budaatum, changed his mind and enhanced his life.

budaatum:
Science is what people go for when they are ill and go to the doctor. Is it "failure" and an "ailment" that science gives us the "control freakery" to heal people and stop them dying young?

As I have told you, the healthiest people on Earth are not where the doctors are or where science is practiced.

budaatum:
Science is what has helped produce better yielding and disease resistant crops which has helped reduce scarcity of food and reduced the number of people who would have died of famines. Is this "control freakery" a "failure" and an "ailment"?

What is happening is that you are taking for granted famine, disease, disaster and so forth.

What you are not addressing is the fact that so much of this is caused by human activity. If you ignore that, then you cannot put anything into a moral context, because you cannot begin to question the dynamics of human nature in any depth.

LordReed:


How does divorcing a product from the science that made it possible form a logical position?

You are not being very precise about what you are asking.

I have already said that the technology is a product of many skills and disciplines, not only science. So, you cannot arbitrarily claim for science whatever you deem positive.

Be more specific. For example, do you know the history of semi-conductor technology? They got computers working before they had a proper theory for semiconductors. Modems? Working modems were carrying information with greater bandwidth than early theories predicted, because those theories were incorrect. With technology, it is overwhelmingly the case that scientific theory does NOT lead the way. It is TRIAL AND ERROR that leads the way. The results end up in products before the scientific theories can account for them.

You can check out the history of aircraft and the theory of flight. You will find the same thing. TRIAL AND ERROR, then TECHNOLOGY, then SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.

LordReed:
Your spiritual guru is free to practice his spirituality without technology. Nowhere does science say you must use the products of science. He is free also to produce evidence that his way is superior.

This failure you allude to is not evident. Science has successfully explained a lot of the natural phenomenon we see and helped us improve the quality of our lives.

Then you should be able to give us you BEST example for discussion. Please do so.

vaxx:
science is pragmatically incline and thus favour human morality if is to be justify.

You have to talk about purpose before you can discuss pragmatism. What purpose does science serve? Are human purposes morally justified?

If your argument is that, "science is the result of human need, therefore it is moral", then we can end it there with polite disagreement.

My point is that mankind is frustrated by his own needs. The answer to that is a moral question of transcendence of those needs, not technological pandering and commodification of the needs.

budaatum:

Science is the acquisition of knowledge about the "facts". Or would you rather we not bother to know about the fact?

It is more subtle than this. Science COLLATES facts and then draws inferences.

It is within this process that science DISCARDS information that it deems useless to society. Science bases this VALUE JUDGMENT on its central philosophy that predictability and controllability of nature is the answer to human suffering. It is a VALUE JUDGMENT, not a truth. If we look at the big picture, we can see that it is failing. It is failing, not because of the way humans choose to use science, but because science can ONLY serve control freakery. Science is not a way to general wisdom, only to control freakery, which we call "knowledge" -- certainty of control. Ironically, it is this same control freakery that is mankind's biggest ailment. Science serves that demon in humans.

budaatum:
Please tell how we are supposed to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground” if we do not learn about the "facts" of our existence?

You will have to consult whoever told you that you are "supposed to" do those things.

vaxx:
You are quite making some interesting point. Science is not immoral as you claim. Poeple determine that? Not science

You mean that people choose to do moral or immoral things with science?

I go further and say that science inherently leads to immoral things. It is in the nature of science as a conceptual vehicle.

vaxx:
Science is a set of self-correcting methods...

Correct in which sense? And with which method are you independently affirming this "correctness"?

vaxx:
for discovering the truth,..

Science is about self-consistency, not discovery of truth. "Truth" in science only refers to internal statistical consistency.

Give ONE example of any universal TRUTH that science has discovered?

vaxx:
plus the information uncovered by science .

Information is inherent in life. All living creatures gather information. It is not the preserve of science. What makes science science is the way it gathers information, and the information it chooses to IGNORE -- information it deems to be of no value because it cannot control it -- information that does not lend itself to the repeatability/reproducibility stricture of science.

vaxx:
The same science that produce car that can be use in transporting a sick patient to the hospital is the same car that transport the robbers to steal from the bank.

The healthiest people on Earth live far from any hospital or motorway.

The problem is that you are not talking about the bigger picture. The small picture is: sick patient -- hospital - good. But the whole paradigm of rushing sick people to hospital is built around the frantic pace of life, which technology is best at serving. How much pollution do cars create -- toxins? greenhouse gases? tyres and rubber runoff? How much sickness is caused by that? What are people using cars for, mostly? Going to and from work in built up cities. Why? Competition, competition, competition, demand, demand, demand. The healthiest people in the world are away from all of that. Most epidemics are man made, hand in glove with technological lifestyle.

vaxx:
By law, there is code of conduct that governs the applicability of science, it is based on pragmatical approach.

Pragmatism only reflects the purpose behind it. Without discussing that purpose, it is empty.

For science, the purpose is control. it is baked into the deliberation of science. It is the purpose and pursuit of control that ironically spawns, not freedom and choice, but our rat race societies of today.

There is a lesson to be learned -- a moral that science teaches in its failure. i.e science is inherently immoral.

LordReed:


This is easily disproved by the very gadget you use in posting this. As a product of science it is undoubtedly creative and constitutes no evidence of immorality in the way it was developed.

The creative aspect is not scientific. You may be thinking that the process of exploiting the science is creative. But, I would even disagree with that.

Our technological modes of communication today, although speedy and accessible, are inherently biased to serving rapid fire lifestyle, with short term thinking. There are many pathological trends associated with it.

Now take, on the other hand, the spiritual guru who says that his most transcendent experience was communing with nature in solitude. How does your "technological gadget" help him, there? What if he is right, and the key to peace and prosperity among mankind is communing with nature (now increasingly impossible in our technological, fast paced rat race)?

If you ride an elephant, it will take you into the forest. If you ride a horse, it will take you to the grassland. Where you arrive is in the nature of your vehicle. The moral of your journey is the realization of the nature of your vehicle -- for humans, the mind, today the scientific mind.

LordReed:
Almost all you do and use today is a product of science so where is this failure evident?

Just about everywhere.

budaatum:

Sorry,..

Let us discuss, and leave out the attitude.

budaatum:
...but science does not search for "phenomena that do not change in space or time"! Quite a lot of phenomena change in space and time, and science attempts to understand and explain such changes. Simple knowledge of chemical processes would point this out to you, as would a study of velocity which is specifically defined as the change in position (space) divided by the time of travel.

You are confusing the fact with the content of the fact. (You have also confused phenomenal fact with definitive fact -- you can define whatever you like, however you like without it telling us anthing about the phenomenal environment, but let us ignore that.)

To apply what I am saying to your example, velocity = displacement per unit time, "holds" today, yesterday, tomorrow, on Earth, on Jupiter, on galaxy SPT0615-JD. (Hope the bots don't kick in and ban me because they don't recognize it.)

The "scientific fact" itself is static, regardless of its content.

Note: the spam bots are notorious for finding words in philosophical discussions that they cannot understand, and banning people. So, be prepared for disappearances at any point..

LordReed:


How did you arrive at that?

Read later posts. I have explained.

budaatum:

Really?? Where do you get this from?

I have explained in my post.

Science searches for "scientific fact" -- phenomena that do not change in space or time.

The nature of scientific understanding is based on this stasis.

budaatum:

How is science "ultimately immoral"? In fact, what do you understand by "science"? Start there if you would please.

Science is the study of stasis -- "that which is fixed and does not change" -death.

Science is an enterprise whose goal it is to chart existence and life in terms of death (stasis).

What is TRUE in scientific terms is that which is reproducible and repeatable in space and time.

The foundation of science is experiment. The outcome of experiment is a statistical observation (often quoted as a sigma value) which IGNORES anything that is not reproducible or repeatable, i.e anything creative. So, in fact scientific knowledge is a form of bias. Scientific knowledge is inherently the residue of IGNORANCE.

I use the word "immoral" in the sense that every precedent has shown that scientific knowledge ultimately fails. The moral of science is failure. The reaction of science to that failure is to supersede the ignorance with more ignorance. This is daubed scientific progress.