Science = Lies

Science is based on a "best fit" scenario. For example I could say that if you put something, say a chair, in an unmonitored room it will cease to exist an instant after it became unmonitored and reappear an instant before it is needed again. You couldn't prove me either right or wrong (anything like a video camera makes it monitored). However the "best fit" is that the chair remains there the whole time. So that is what we believe.

The statements you mentioned are "best fit" because there are too many variables. Each fingerprint/snowflake could be the same pattern (very unlikely but possible) but a slightly different size, thickness, what if one of the ones that would otherwise be the same were damaged.

BTW the 10% of the brain one is bogus.

 

All the things you describe are not claimed by all scientists.. Please, the next time you make such a post, try to educate yourself on the subjects first. =)

Wrong, scientists don't claim this anymore (at least it would be quite inane, since it's a myth):
Ten percent of the brain myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this supposed to be even serious..? Please do some research to understand where these claims come from (statistics perhaps? Just an idea?) and read why some snowflakes might be the same.

Snowflakes - No Two Alike?

Did you even do research on this topic?

Wrong: http://science.howstuffworks.com/fingerprinting1.htm

 

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. You obviously have no idea what science is about. The fact that you expect scientists to "prove" anything suggests that you have never taken any higher level science class nor been involved in any scientific research.

 

First off, scientists in fact don't say that humans use only 10% of their brains. This is an urban legend, probably based on a misquote from a late 19th century researcher who simply said that the brain may be capable of feats beyond what we know they're capable of. (And that last sentence is one I think scientists, who still have a lot to discover about the brain, would agree with.)

The other two comments are along the same lines. They're not things scientists have said. They're things that a non-scientist says in an attempt to bring what a scientist would say into common parlance. A scientist would say something like "the variety of ways a snowfalke might crystalize are so numerous that the odds of finding two identical ones is extremely remote". They might say the odds are "very close to zero" or even "practically zero". But it's the non-scientist who would read that as being "zero".

And it's this misinterpretation of the facts that confuses people. Last year, somebody offered millions of dollars for a perfect NCAA basketball bracket. And this was still a safe bet. Not because a perfect bracket is impossible - after all, every year, precisely one perfect bracket theoretically exists! It's because the odds of picking that bracket are far greater than the millions to one. Similarly, when a fingerprint matches a suspect, this does not mean that there is no chance that somebody exists with exactly the same fingerprint. It simply means the odds that somebody matching that fingerprint happened to commit that particular crime is exceptionally low. This is why jurors are asked to determine guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "until there's absolutely zero chance of innocence".

This "sloppy translating betwwen science and common parlance" shows up everywhere. We still say "sunrise" even though the sun doesn't actually rise. This isn't scientists lying to us - it's humans being lazy in how we discuss scientific phenomena.

Lex

 

I have a feeling this will end badly.

 

Me too.
Popcorn is at the ready.

 

This might be one of the finer examples of satire, I've seen.

 

As others have said, this is not a claim that has ever been made by a respectable scientist. But of course, if it were the case, that would be possible to be determined by science.

You might, for example, hear of a man being shot twice in the head but surviving because luckily the bullets only passed through the 90% of his brain that he wasn't using.

Also, given that it's the size of our brains that makes childbirth so much more dangerous for us than or most other mammals, there would be considerable evolutionary pressure on us to tend towards having brains that didn't include the 90% that wasn't being used.

 

can't tell if troll post or serious.... either way I had a good laugh.

Also at Quem's response for the irritation and sarcasm haha I love it.

 

thats the answer mr sparkles gave to the thread "what weird things do you do?"

i'm not saying that he doesn't mean this serious but you might consider it before calling someone stupid.

 

It's not science's fault when an ignorant public spreads misinformation about science. If you had any education in science you'd realize that no real/credible scientist ever uses the word "proves," let alone claims their findings to be absolute fact/truth. That would be absurd.

 

I'm sorry but this is the stupidest thread I've ever seen on this website. Essentially the argument goes like "I've heard these bs claims therefore I assume scientists have said them, therefore science = lie". It doesn't actually matter what a scientist says anyway. It's what the consensus is and the consensus does not suggest any of those facts (expect perhaps for the second one).

The last claim is statistically likely to be true, as the number of possible combinations of snowflakes is so high that the likelihood of two snowflakes being the same is very unlikely. "No Two Snowflakes the Same" Likely True, Research Reveals

 

When studying science one of the first things you are taught at university is the real definition of proof, theory and hypothesis in a scientific capacity. Unfortunately the general public have other ideas and definitions for these terms and that's often where the confusion arises. When you speak to someone without a scientific education they often say "well it's just a theory, like evolution etc." However in the world of science a theory is a well substantiated explanation for an aspect of the natural world which has been rigorously tested and confirmed through experimentation and observation. It is not the same as a hypothesis which is a conjecture that is testable.

Forgot to add that science is also changing and evolving and we are always discovering new things. So there will be ideas that people believed years ago that we can now refute due to the presence of better technology and research.

 

I'm sorry but what actually is the purpose of your thread then?

You can't just post supposed "lies" and not have them contested. Who is to say you are right and the "evil lying scientists" are wrong.

 

It might not be what you intended but what would happen if you started a thread about all the lies in the Bible or the Qur'an? Would you expect everyone to just accept it and not argue? As an atheist who believe in science and scientific theory I want to defend my beliefs.