3 edits
Originally posted by @eladarif any of them understood correct scientific method and noticed they are violating it, yes; But then they wouldn't likely be practitioners of it thus it is likely they failed to understand what is wrong with it.
Do you think the practitioners of pseudoscience of the past would believe their practice would one day be considered pseudoscience?
What is the point you are trying to make here?
Originally posted by @eladarWhat are you trying to argue here? What part of the article you posted explains the pseudoscience of genocide? Can you explain it? Because I can't.
Are you really that dense or is it that you have some ideological belief that blinds you?
As for the pseudoscience, how much of today's science will be considered pseudoscience a hundred years from now?
Originally posted by @eladarNot if there are significant fitness advantages to being small and agile, or needing fewer daily calories.
When it comes to evolution it is only natural that humans becoming a stronger, smarter and disease resistant race would be good.
As for disease resistance, bugs evolve too. So we do develop disease resistance over time, but the bugs develop resistances to our resistances.
A good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_surface_glycoprotein
Originally posted by @freakykbhYou're right there, he did work in two pseudo sciences: Alchemy and the occult.
[b]Newton was never a pseudo scientist. He was right in the fields he worked in.
Two such fields: alchemy and the occult.
Feel free to expand on how right he was in these fields of science, please.[/b]
I was more referring to his contributions in science.
Originally posted by @wildgrassDid I say being bigger?
Not if there are significant fitness advantages to being small and agile, or needing fewer daily calories.
As for disease resistance, bugs evolve too. So we do develop disease resistance over time, but the bugs develop resistances to our resistances.
A good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_surface_glycoprotein
Originally posted by @fabianfnasThen you shouldn't have said what you said, huh.
You're right there, he did work in two pseudo sciences: Alchemy and the occult.
I was more referring to his contributions in science.
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarSure he was trying to create superman but the pseudoscience part comes in when they didn't know shyte about real genetics and didn't therefore know they could indeed breed desired traits into humanity at large but the pesky problem is the fact it would take about 100 generations for desired traits to show up in the general population and good luck keeping a unified government together to keep such a program going for that long a period of time, 2000 or more years. Know any culture on Earth surviving that long with a unified government intent on such programs?
You don't know why Hitler felt he needed to purify his Aryan super race society?
Do you deny that Hitler was trying to create the uberman?
So their so-called science WAS pseudoscience even thought they thought otherwise.
Originally posted by @sonhouseThanks for agreeing with me.
Sure he was trying to create superman but the pseudoscience part comes in when they didn't know shyte about real genetics and didn't therefore know they could indeed breed desired traits into humanity at large but the pesky problem is the fact it would take about 100 generations for desired traits to show up in the general population and good luck keeping ...[text shortened]... h programs?
So their so-called science WAS pseudoscience even thought they thought otherwise.
All I was saying is that Hitler was using the science of the day, which we call pseudoscience today, to achieve his goal of producing a master race.
Originally posted by @freakykbhNewton explored alchemy scientifically, without success. However, he succeeded with much success with gravitation, light and mathematics.
Then you shouldn't have said what you said, huh.
There are pseudo sciences of today that are very easy to crush scientifically - like flat earth theory, the theory that moon landing didn't happen, bermuda triangle theory, and more of the same kind. But pseudo sciences are like religions, they are hard to erase among those who believe in them.
Originally posted by @eladarNo of course not. That was obviously my point. There are other heritable traits besides strength and intelligence and disease resistance that would lead to differential survival and reproduction. Depends on the ecosystem.
Did I say being bigger?
3 edits
Originally posted by @eladarWhat was the science you're talking about? Still hasn't been explained.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
All I was saying is that Hitler was using the science of the day, which we call pseudoscience today, to achieve his goal of producing a master race.
It certainly wasn't natural selection. Hitler never once mentioned it.
edit: Aha, I found it. Not sure why you guys can't provide substance to your arguments. https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/nazi-racial-science
This campaign was based in part on ideas about public health and genetic “fitness” that had grown out of the inclination of many late nineteenth century scientists and intellectuals to apply the Darwinian concepts of evolution to the problems of human society. These ideas became known as eugenics and found a receptive audience in countries as varied as Brazil, France, Great Britain, and the United States. But in Germany, in the traumatic aftermath of World War I and the subsequent economic upheavals of the twenties, eugenic ideas found a more virulent expression when combined with the Nazi worldview that espoused both German racial superiority and militaristic ultranationalism.
What they are talking about here is Social darwinism, not Darwin. It's not actual science at all. It was a fundamentally flawed concept, and was recognized as such by Darwin himself. Unlike evolution and natural selection, there was no empirical evidence to support it.
Originally posted by @eladarAs judged by what standard?
When it comes to evolution it is only natural that humans becoming a stronger, smarter and disease resistant race would be good.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasI continue to hear all about how readily a scientific explanation can dispatch with the claims of a flat earth and rejection of the claims of landing on the moon.
Newton explored alchemy scientifically, without success. However, he succeeded with much success with gravitation, light and mathematics.
There are pseudo sciences of today that are very easy to crush scientifically - like flat earth theory, the theory that moon landing didn't happen, bermuda triangle theory, and more of the same kind. But pseudo sciences are like religions, they are hard to erase among those who believe in them.
What makes the declaration more than a little problematic is that both the flat earth and the moon landing denial are based on science--- actual science with actual evidence.
You may have missed it, but there's been a considerable amount of discussion on the topics herein.
Everyone who voted for the globe earth or for landing on the moon failed to establish why they have that belief... other than: that's what we were told!
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbh
I continue to hear all about how readily a scientific explanation can dispatch with the claims of a flat earth and rejection of the claims of landing on the moon.
What makes the declaration more than a little problematic is that both the flat earth and the moon landing denial are based on science--- actual science with actual evidence.
You may have mis ...[text shortened]... the moon failed to establish why they have that belief... other than: that's what we were told!
both the flat earth and the moon landing denial are based on science--- actual science with actual evidence.
Which science? What evidence? If that is true, why refuse to show us just as if you are lying?