Political Crossfire Forums

ew713 · Joined: 27 May 2006 Posts: 81 Location: Seattle, WA

steen wrote: ew713 wrote: steen:

my believe that science is bias is based on the fact that sometimes there isnt proof...isnt a solid fact to prove/disprove something... Which is why science specifically makes that distinction, yes. So I am not sure what the problem is? Have you ever read anything about science and the vocabulary. Science specifically talk about scientific theories because there always is a risk of being wrong. So science specifically tries to avoid that pitfall. It is inherently unbiased in that very point.

Quote: just because a book cannot be read by a gorilla does not mean that the story doesnt exist... True. And science wouldn't say that "the book doesn't exist." Rather, science would say that "There is no evidence that there is a book to be read by a gorilla."

See the difference? Science doesn't make biased, unsubstantiated conclusions. It makes conclusions ONLY on the data and not outside the scope of that data. Don't confuse the reports ABOUT science with the actual science.

Quote: i am positive that there is a limit to our ability to compute information, just as all other animals have limits... SUre. But within that limit, we are very good at it.

Quote: does that make sense? Let me know... It makes sense, but I still disagree with your characterization of science.

steen: all i am saying is that there could be so much more that we just arent capable of understanding...i admit, in our minds we have accomplished a ton, but how small is this compared to a higher form of life...assuming that there is the possiblity that somewhere in the universe there is higher forms of life...science i am sure recognizes that possibilty...something to think about

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

ew713 wrote: steen: all i am saying is that there could be so much more that we just arent capable of understanding... Sure.

Quote: i admit, in our minds we have accomplished a ton, but how small is this compared to a higher form of life...assuming that there is the possiblity that somewhere in the universe there is higher forms of life... "higher"?

Quote: science i am sure recognizes that possibilty...something to think about Science recognizes what there is evidence for. that's it, nothing more. That's how science works, after all. I am beginning to get the impression that you don't understand the Scientific Method? That certainly would make the discussion much harder to discuss. I have some excellent links if you are interested?

Don't use Wikipedia. It has some serious flaws in its description of the Scientific Method, notably in the results part.

ew713 · Joined: 27 May 2006 Posts: 81 Location: Seattle, WA

steen wrote: ew713 wrote: steen: all i am saying is that there could be so much more that we just arent capable of understanding... Sure.

Quote: i admit, in our minds we have accomplished a ton, but how small is this compared to a higher form of life...assuming that there is the possiblity that somewhere in the universe there is higher forms of life... "higher"?

Quote: science i am sure recognizes that possibilty...something to think about Science recognizes what there is evidence for. that's it, nothing more. That's how science works, after all. I am beginning to get the impression that you don't understand the Scientific Method? That certainly would make the discussion much harder to discuss. I have some excellent links if you are interested?

Don't use Wikipedia. It has some serious flaws in its description of the Scientific Method, notably in the results part.

I understand the scientific method...it uses observation and data through experimentation to make conclusions...(summed up very shortly...) but I believe that science does accept that there is so much left to be understood...observed, experimented with...science is incomplete...i think science knows this...

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

ew713 wrote: I understand the scientific method...it uses observation and data through experimentation to make conclusions...(summed up very shortly...) but I believe that science does accept that there is so much left to be understood...observed, experimented with...science is incomplete...i think science knows this... Sure. otherwise, there would be nothing left to research. But I am not sure of the context here?

ew713 · Joined: 27 May 2006 Posts: 81 Location: Seattle, WA

steen wrote: ew713 wrote: I understand the scientific method...it uses observation and data through experimentation to make conclusions...(summed up very shortly...) but I believe that science does accept that there is so much left to be understood...observed, experimented with...science is incomplete...i think science knows this... Sure. otherwise, there would be nothing left to research. But I am not sure of the context here?

steen: you and I have really gotten far OT havent we?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Absolutely.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

dkong911 wrote: Blockading Japan for literally years would've resulted in insurmountable material and personnel costs for the USA.

Insurmountable? Can you elaborate on this one?

I've heard plenty of exaggerated or propagandized stories and scenarios for the horrific costs asscociated with "x-day" or "operation downfall" but I have yet to see them for a standard naval blockade, so if you can supply the "insurmountable" costs scenario from your crystal ball that would be great.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

dkong911 wrote: 1,000,000+ dead Americans < 200,000 dead Japanese civilians?
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

1) 1,000,000+ dead Americans from a naval blockade? Wow those kamikaze pilots are GOOD!

2) The source you cited clearly stated that the casualty estimates from the A-bombs are unreliable and inconclusive, and that the true figure is difficult to know. Were all the possible cancer deaths from years later also factored in?

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

straw man wrote: dkong911 wrote: 1,000,000+ dead Americans < 200,000 dead Japanese civilians?
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

1) 1,000,000+ dead Americans from a naval blockade? Wow those kamikaze pilots are GOOD!

2) The source you cited clearly stated that the casualty estimates from the A-bombs are unreliable and inconclusive, and that the true figure is difficult to know. Were all the possible cancer deaths from years later also factored in? No amount of soldiers in peril justifies the targeting of civilians. I dont care if its 20 million troops vs 1 innocent child. Soldiers fight wars, not civilians.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: Just curious if you dont support abortion, do you support our use of the A bomb? It seems to me like if you value innocent life, you wouldnt support the targeting of civilians in the way we did. Such are my beliefs anyways.
Even though the bomb may have saved Americans soldiers lives, they ended many innocent civilians' lives. So heres a pro lifer asking you other pro lifers, what do you think?

P.S. Pro choicers of course can respond anywhere they want on this thread, im just curious what other pro lifers think. I oppose the use of the A bomb on any civilian targets. I oppose its use on military ones if the atack is unprovoked or not used in a strictly defensive way.
also we could have dropped the bomb on a military formation or islan ihabited by all Japanese soldiers.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: See the difference? Science doesn't make biased, unsubstantiated conclusions. It makes conclusions ONLY on the data and not outside the scope of that data. Don't confuse the reports ABOUT science with the actual science. so when science decided that prayer xtually caused a patients condition to worsen, they were right because they reprted the facts from the peer reviewd study right?