And so ends the world as we know it...

[Per]

It's not the end of the world, just the end of what we thought we knew about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

[Topper]

and I feel fine

[rats19]

and I feel fine

like measuring the speed of a beard hair growing...but the other end of the spectrum...

[LotusBlossom]

and I feel fine

Didn't they (REM) officially break up?

[Aaronp18]

See ...... this is why we can never rely on "scientific consensus"!!!

[Topper]

and I feel fine

Didn't they (REM) officially break up?

but that was only the speed of sound

33 1/3

[rats19]

and I feel fine

Didn't they (REM) officially break up?

but that was only the speed of sound

33 1/3

like this?http://dublab.com/look/film-finds/33-13-revolutions-per-monkee/

[Strangelove]

See ...... this is why we can never rely on "scientific consensus"!!!

Attaboy Aaron... finally!

Ummm, you're welcome.

[Arachnid]

See ...... this is why we can never rely on "scientific consensus"!!!

Attaboy Aaron... finally!

Ummm, you're welcome.

There's a consensus on religion?

[Strangelove]

There's a consensus on religion?

No, thank God.

Speaking of religion...

Could there be anything more "unscientific" than the "scientific consensus" of the "scientific community"??

"For example, it is generally agreed that scientific hypotheses and theories must be capable of being independently tested and verified by other scientists in order to become accepted by the scientific community."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

"Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Just sayin....

[Sick Bunny]

Speaking of religion...

Could there be anything more "unscientific" than the "scientific consensus" of the "scientific community"??

*cough* *cough* The King James... oh nevermind.

Anyway, they'll either figure out where they've got their measurements buggered up, or your favourite community is going to have to find some new consensus. The latter option is mindblowingly huge, but most scientists would probably prefer it. Either way, I'm pretty sure nobody's going to get burned at the stake or excommunicated, no young extremist PhDs are going to be flying planes into buildings, nobody's going to picket CERN with pro-neutrino and anti-neutrino demonstrations, or engage in any of those other violent routines that seem to come with believing in the good book and loving your fellow man.

[Strangelove]

Speaking of religion...

Could there be anything more "unscientific" than the "scientific consensus" of the "scientific community"??

*cough* *cough* The King James...

Hmmm... two different kinds of 'belief', right?

You're comparing the unscientific-ness of the Bible to that of the "scientific consensus of the scientific community".

Interesting...

I'm pretty sure nobody's going to get burned at the stake or excommunicated, no young extremist PhDs are going to be flying planes into buildings, nobody's going to picket CERN with pro-neutrino and anti-neutrino demonstrations, or engage in any of those other violent routines that seem to come with believing in the good book and loving your fellow man.

Now you're comparing the morality of other religions to morality within the scientific community where it comes to determining consensus.

One should first point out that many within the scientific community also believe in God/belong to "other religions".

One might point out that those "God-less bastards" of Communist Russia engaged in plenty of "violent routines".

And that those violent-routine loving Nazis of WWII Germany invoked a platform of evolutionary Scientific Racism.

Hey, Scientific Racism was once the scientific consensus of the western world's scientific community!

Speaking of WWII wasn't it cool how the various "scientific communities" were battling to build The Bomb??

One wonders if American atheists were in favour of the somewot violent acts of nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

But I digress...

Point is: violent routines are committed by those within/not-within the scientific community, religious-folk/atheists, etc.

... so how's-about putting an end your evil witch-hunt there Castabunny.

[Sick Bunny]

You're comparing the unscientific-ness of the Bible to that of the "scientific consensus of the scientific community".

Only in the sense that one is infinitely "more" unscientific. Otherwise it's an apples-to-hot-air comparison.

Now you're comparing the morality of other religions to morality within the scientific community where it comes to determining consensus.

I'm not -- who said anything about morality? I'm simply comparing norms of discourse and acceptable ways of expressing disagreement in the scientific and religious communities.

One might point out that those "God-less bastards" of Communist Russia engaged in plenty of "violent routines".

And that those violent-routine loving Nazis of WWII Germany invoked a platform of evolutionary Scientific Racism.

So now you're saying religious violence is OK because "look the Commies and the Nazis did it too"? Ouch.

Besides, just because both the Commies and the Nazis tried to cloak their ideology in some sort of pseudo-scientific babble, does not make them a part of the "scientific community" and the "scientific consensus". Plenty of scientists actively opposed them and their "theories". In any case, both Communism and Nazism are entirely faith-based systems that ought to be compared to religion and not science.

Speaking of WWII wasn't it cool how the various "scientific communities" were battling to build The Bomb??

So? It's wartime, your government asks you to build this weapon before the guys on the other side do, what are you going to do, seriously?

... so how's-about putting an end your evil witch-hunt there Castabunny.

I wonder who's doing the witch-hunting, Doc. I pop my head in here once in a blue moon, and you're on about scientists again...

[Sick Bunny]

One wonders if American atheists

Saw something today that reminded me of this argument...



As Artie used to say, "interesting, interesting" (WTH is he anyways?)

[Strangelove]

Oh I wouldn't call it an "argument" Bunny.

Its more like I'm trying to help you and you're pretending you don't understand.

Is there anything more political than the selection process at the National Academy of Sciences??

They don't tend to like non-atheists much....

I wouldn't be surprised if 93% of the 2,100 members are atheists.

(or at least claim to be atheists)

Prolly more than 21 of em should be in jail though.

So 33% of US scientists are atheists compared to 93% of your precious NAS??

Yep, politics....