South Park joke won't air in Sweden

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

What you deliver to me is not information. It is theories I do not agree with no matter how many people with suits you would bring to convince me otherwise.

The earth does not rotate because of "conservation of angular momentum". This is a stupid idea which has never been proven and that is the end of it.

I would just like to add that I probably have a better academic education than you do and my knowledge in exact sciences is very good by any standards. Contrary to what you might think - I do not spend most of my day in a Masque.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Science does not (self-admittedly) deal in the supernatural, spiritual, or things declared outside of nature.

There is nothing supernatural in spiritual things - you are alive and that is the end of it.

You are just willing to base your viewpoint upon a doctrine that disputes this fact. Science views the fact that you are alive as neglectable.

So how can you base a healthy normal viewpoint upon it?

Because it gives you some trivia answers?

 

[Skavau]

What you deliver to me is not information. It is theories I do not agree with no matter how many people with suits you would bring to convince me otherwise.

The earth does not rotate because of "conservation of angular momentum". This is a stupid idea which has never been proven and that is the end of it.

I would just like to add that I probably have a better academic education than you do and my knowledge in exact sciences is very good by any standards. Contrary to what you might think - I do not spend most of my day in a Masque.

Sorry, I witnessed your discussion with DataPacRat and only drew the same conclusion that Pygoscelis drew. I don't know what your problem with the conservation of angular momentum is, or why you think there does not exist a body of evidence for it.

 

[Skavau]

There is nothing supernatural in spiritual things - you are alive and that is the end of it.

'Spiritual' and 'supernatural' are both white nose to me.

You are just willing to base your viewpoint upon a doctrine that disputes this fact. Science views the fact that you are alive as neglectable.

Science tells us what is, not ought.

So how can you base a healthy normal viewpoint upon it?

Because it gives you some trivia answers?

See above.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Any idea you consume translates in your mind to a viewpoint of life.

This is basic human nature. The reason for this is that you have invested time in listening to
this idea and therefore need to integrate it in your view point.

When you consume only scientific ideas your viewpoint on life would be technical and
rigid. This rigidity is today universal and dangerous.

Like a diet. If you ear just carbs you would be unhealthy.

Having just science and rationality and philosophy is an unhealthy mental diet.

 

[Zafran]

[Science tells us what is, not ought.

Not true - I'll repeat

Science is also based on faith Just like religion - How do we know the same experiment that we did yesterday is still going to give us the same results in the future - regardless of how many times the experiment is carried out that faith is always needed.

 

[Skavau]

When you consume only scientific ideas your viewpoint on life would be technical and rigid. This rigidity is today universal and dangerous.

It is a good job then that I do not only "consume" scientific ideas then, isn't it?

 

[Skavau]

Not true - I'll repeat

What does your confusion over experimentation in science have to do with my point that science tells us what is, not what ought?

Your argument that perhaps our experimentation could differ if repeated in the future is merely informing me that you are inherently distrustful of human experience. By your own reckoning, we could not be reasonably sure of anything. We could have no reason to believe the world is even slightly close to how we perceive it.

 

[Zafran]

What does your confusion over experimentation in science have to do with my point that science tells us what is, not what ought?

Your argument that perhaps our experimentation could differ if repeated in the future is merely informing me that you are inherently distrustful of human experience. By your own reckoning, we could not be reasonably sure of anything. We could have no reason to believe the world is even slightly close to how we perceive it.

We can only be "reasonably sure" thats not what "Is" its actually what "ought". How can science tells us what it "is" if there is a chance that it could be different in the future?

 

[Pygoscelis]

If I work harder - nothing happens - I get the same paycheck. Absolutely the same. This means that my
grandfather and grandmother were free people - while I am a slave - and so is anybody else
who is receiving a paycheck.

This has nothing to do with science. It has much more to do with your life choices. I earn as much money as effort I put in, because I work for myself. If you chose to work for somebody else and they are not paying you what you deserve, promoting you, giving you raises, why do you stay their employee? You are not a slave. Nobody is forcing you to work for them.

 

[Pygoscelis]

We can only be "reasonably sure" thats not what "Is" its actually what "ought". How can science tells us what it "is" if there is a chance that it could be different in the future?

with perfect certainty, it can't. All it can do is make better and better guesses. But that is still a vast improvement over accepting things on faith. If the laws of the universe suddenly changed tomorrow, all our machines that we have based on the science that unconvered them would stop working - and we'd have to go back to the drawing board. Science corrects its base assumptions every now and then. Look up how Einstein corrected some very basic assumptions of Newton. For these corrections and ideas Einstein is one of the most famous and credited scientists in history. That's what you get for challenging and correcting assumptions and understandings of Science. When you challenge understandings of religion its called blasphemy and people tend to get killed for it.

 

[Zafran]

with perfect certainty, it can't. All it can do is make better and better guesses. But that is still a vast improvement over accepting things on faith. If the laws of the universe suddenly changed tomorrow, all our machines that we have based on the science that unconvered them would stop working - and we'd have to go back to the drawing board. Science corrects its base assumptions every now and then. Look up how Einstein corrected some very basic assumptions of Newton. For these corrections and ideas Einstein is one of the most famous and credited scientists in history. That's what you get for challenging and correcting assumptions and understandings of Science. When you challenge understandings of religion its called blasphemy and people tend to get killed for it.

I know about Einstein but you have to look at how long it took for somebody to actually correct Newtons assumptions. Many people have challenged religions and have surivied by doing so.

Ultimatley science is still based on some kind of belief even if it keeps getting revised - it still relies on the same method used by the previous people.

My Main problem was with Skavu's view on Is and ought about Science anyway.

 

[JETforce]

Here we have Swedish channels, located in arguably the most left-wing country on Earth, being bullied by far right wing religious people into not airing a simple joke. Wow, makes me sick.

 

[Skavau]

We can only be "reasonably sure" thats not what "Is" its actually what "ought". How can science tells us what it "is" if there is a chance that it could be different in the future?

Of course. There is no such thing as 'proof' in science. We cannot claim with absolute certainly anything. You are complaining about the capacity to know things, not the scientific method.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

It is a good job then that I do not only "consume" scientific ideas then, isn't it?

I do not understand what you want to see.

But - for me it seems that it is clear that you are a person which is on a very limited and unhealthy mental diet.

At the end of the day it does not do you good. If you want, I can recommend for you other sources were you can get better mental food.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Of course. There is no such thing as 'proof' in science. We cannot claim with absolute certainly anything. You are complaining about the capacity to know things, not the scientific method.

Your problem is that you blend two things together and you do not notice when we try to point it out to you.

1. We do not have a problem with what science has proven .

2. We have a problem with scientific theories which are presented as proven
- while they are not.

There are many such theories and if you would look at it you would see that most of them have
the following common properties :

1. Your ability to truly verify them is zero (which means that you believe them rather than know)

2. They all seem to try to dispute or rather leads you to ideas which go against Allah.

3. They dis-empower you.

Combining these three things together makes me feel that we should keep distance from these
things.

The only "proof" you have so far given to these things is, in short, the following:

"I do not want to loose my technology and I think that this technology comes from these
theories - therefore I am willing to embrace them fully in order to have the nice gadgets that I have"

My advice for you - just part these two things - be careful with what you consume - you are well deserving
to use the technology without buying into foolish theories and there is no need for you to do so.

Just like when you eat a banana - you peel it first. Same thing here

 

[Skavau]

The only "proof" you have so far given to these things is, in short, the following:

"I do not want to loose my technology and I think that this technology comes from these
theories - therefore I am willing to embrace them fully in order to have the nice gadgets that I have"

I have not tried to demonstrate anything in science. I simply reference the modern commodities that we all take for granted. It is the height of hypocrisy and the very definition of 'biting the hands that feeds you' to lambast science and insult scientists when their discoveries have been the foundation for advancement in the last 150 years. The reason people generally live longer now in developed nations is due to increased standards of living, increased level of health and medical treatment avaliable to use on the ill. The reason that many diseases are treatable or eradicated now (that would otherwise cause death) is also entirely due to scientific accomplishment and discovery. The reason that most of the world is able to recieve food is entirely due to scientific accomplishment due to the Haber Proces.

The reason we are even able to have this conversation is due to the advanced nature of telecommunications. I do not claim that the fact I happen to enjoy the modern day commodities is evidence for their existence. We already agree they exist. They come from sweat and toil from the scientific method - something you villify.

 

[Skavau]

I do not understand what you want to see.

But - for me it seems that it is clear that you are a person which is on a very limited and unhealthy mental diet.

At the end of the day it does not do you good. If you want, I can recommend for you other sources were you can get better mental food.

You say this despite not knowing me, or anything about me? You've already got it wrong by assuming I derive what ought from what is (just as Zafran did).

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

You say this despite not knowing me, or anything about me? You've already got it wrong by assuming I derive what ought from what is (just as Zafran did).

What you want me to know about you? I see the answers you give and I can understand were you come from -
that's enough.

You are stubborn - you do not want to take good advice when you get it.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I have not tried to demonstrate anything in science. I simply reference the modern commodities that we all take for granted. It is the height of hypocrisy and the very definition of 'biting the hands that feeds you' to lambast science and insult scientists when their discoveries have been the foundation for advancement in the last 150 years. The reason people generally live longer now in developed nations is due to increased standards of living, increased level of health and medical treatment avaliable to use on the ill. The reason that many diseases are treatable or eradicated now (that would otherwise cause death) is also entirely due to scientific accomplishment and discovery. The reason that most of the world is able to recieve food is entirely due to scientific accomplishment due to the Haber Proces.

The reason we are even able to have this conversation is due to the advanced nature of telecommunications. I do not claim that the fact I happen to enjoy the modern day commodities is evidence for their existence. We already agree they exist. They come from sweat and toil from the scientific method - something you villify.

YOU JUST DONT WANT TO GET IT.

There are two types of science:

1. Engineering - I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

2. THEORETICAL BULL****

Contrary to what you think - THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

I have no problem with studying how a computer works or how a car works - and believe
me I know.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE STUPID EXPLANATION SCIENCE GIVES FOR "WHY" QUESTIONS.

When science explains to me how things work - I have no problem with that - this is great.

But the "why" answers are STUPID foolish and wicked. And above all UNPROVABLE.

This is what I am trying to tell you - even a monkey parts the cover of a banana. I do not care
if you eat the fruit - we all do, enjoy it and are actually demanded to know how it
works. But do not eat the cover - you would get a stomach ache and be sick.