a while ago, i wrote down a deep thought, and thought i'd post it. the reason why, is because i'm hoping others will submit other thoughts, and hopefully, they will be just as deep. so that in the end, we know that this site is not just filled mindless porn-driven furries, but with people who can think on a deeper level. so please read, comment, ........ and then go back to your mindless furry porn:3

here is my thought

if what has been learned cannot be forgotten
then i have learned little from school
and much from the world it has kept me from.

the problem is that what has been learned CAN be forgotten because of lack of synapse connection being made if what has been learned has not been rehearsed, which is what school is for. god i love psychology.

To me, clowns aren't funny. In fact, they're kinda scary. I've
wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I
went to the circus and a clown killed my dad.

niko_bellic said:
the problem is that what has been learned CAN be forgotten because of lack of synapse connection being made if what has been learned has not been rehearsed, which is what school is for. god i love psychology.

School is a feckin' waste. Mine was, anyway. >_> Half of the people who went there never learned to feckin' read, the other half never learned to feckin' spell(with a few exceptions), Financial Math wasn't in the curriculum, and the Home-Ec teacher was a jerk that never taught us any real homekeeping skills. :|

So yeah. I didn't learn JACK that was important in real life from school. =_=

That said, time for something deep.

"If a human howls like a monkey, does it make them less human? If a monkey were to bark, would it make it any less monkey?"

Or some kinda zen crap... Not feelin' very deep-minded with this feckin' headache.

As the light changed from red to green to yellow and back to red
again, I sat there thinking about life. Was it nothing more than a
bunch of honking and yelling? Sometimes it seemed that way.

when all is lost. your all alone, and have nothing to live for.
look to the left, and tell heaven not to wait for you.
look to the right, and tell death he's got a long chase ahead of him.

Burninghart said:
School is a feckin' waste. Mine was, anyway. >_> Half of the people who went there never learned to feckin' read, the other half never learned to feckin' spell(with a few exceptions), Financial Math wasn't in the curriculum, and the Home-Ec teacher was a jerk that never taught us any real homekeeping skills. :|

So yeah. I didn't learn JACK that was important in real life from school. =_=

That said, time for something deep.

"If a human howls like a monkey, does it make them less human? If a monkey were to bark, would it make it any less monkey?"

Or some kinda zen crap... Not feelin' very deep-minded with this feckin' headache.

the school i went to tought me many things i have used in real life, then again i avoided idiot public school and got myself into a magnet school focused on preparing engineers, science academy of south texas. deep thought to go along with teh op post, although i already know the answer

why do we have to go to school if the internet knows more than all the teachers combined?

What is it about a beautiful sunny afternoon, with the birds singing
and the wind rustling through the leaves, that makes you want to get
drunk? And after you're real drunk, maybe go down to the public park
and stagger around and ask people for money, and then lay down and go
to sleep.

null0100 said:
What is it about a beautiful sunny afternoon, with the birds singing
and the wind rustling through the leaves, that makes you want to get
drunk? And after you're real drunk, maybe go down to the public park
and stagger around and ask people for money, and then lay down and go
to sleep.

nothing really, since i don't drink

I was looking at post #12737 and realized that, while it looks like a simple enough image, without knowing the artist's original intent I think it's an interesting image that says a lot about art and sexuality. At first glance it looks like a regular pinup of a woman character, but the fact that the outline for the chest doesn't recede back towards the body makes the entire image ambiguous.

It could be a woman with small breasts. It could be a woman with normal breasts and a loose vest. It could be a drawing error. <i>Or</i> it could be a prepubescent girl. Or it could be a crossdressing guy. If that one line veered back just a tiny bit the ambiguity would be removed.
And this is all besides the fact that whatever it is has cervine ears and tail, and the fact that it doesn't actually show much nudity in the first place.

I'm sure this isn't an isolated incident, but this is the only time I've actually sat and thought about it for awhile.

And I still can't decide how to tag the damn thing.

I've felt it's things like that which can contribute to one's sexuality veering over to bisexuality, the ambiguity which can often be seen in furry art. Or at least, I think that's at least partially responsible for my own changes..

RlctntFr said:
I was looking at post #12737 and realized that, while it looks like a simple enough image, without knowing the artist's original intent I think it's an interesting image that says a lot about art and sexuality. At first glance it looks like a regular pinup of a woman character, but the fact that the outline for the chest doesn't recede back towards the body makes the entire image ambiguous.

It could be a woman with small breasts. It could be a woman with normal breasts and a loose vest. It could be a drawing error. <i>Or</i> it could be a prepubescent girl. Or it could be a crossdressing guy. If that one line veered back just a tiny bit the ambiguity would be removed.
And this is all besides the fact that whatever it is has cervine ears and tail, and the fact that it doesn't actually show much nudity in the first place.

I'm sure this isn't an isolated incident, but this is the only time I've actually sat and thought about it for awhile.

And I still can't decide how to tag the damn thing.

read my comment, lipstick, wide hips. female

RlctntFr said:
I was looking at post #12737 and realized that, while it looks like a simple enough image, without knowing the artist's original intent I think it's an interesting image that says a lot about art and sexuality. At first glance it looks like a regular pinup of a woman character, but the fact that the outline for the chest doesn't recede back towards the body makes the entire image ambiguous.

It could be a woman with small breasts. It could be a woman with normal breasts and a loose vest. It could be a drawing error. <i>Or</i> it could be a prepubescent girl. Or it could be a crossdressing guy. If that one line veered back just a tiny bit the ambiguity would be removed.
And this is all besides the fact that whatever it is has cervine ears and tail, and the fact that it doesn't actually show much nudity in the first place.

I'm sure this isn't an isolated incident, but this is the only time I've actually sat and thought about it for awhile.

And I still can't decide how to tag the damn thing.

read my comment, lipstick, wide hips. female

Valence said:
I've felt it's things like that which can contribute to one's sexuality veering over to bisexuality, the ambiguity which can often be seen in furry art. Or at least, I think that's at least partially responsible for my own changes..

and here i thought it was lack of being able to get laid with chicks that made guys resort to drastic measures like turning gay for sex.

niko_bellic said:
read my comment, lipstick, wide hips. female

Yeah I'm pretty sure it's female too. I also think it looks a fair bit too mature to be labeled cub. I'd say small-breasted female just from looking at it.

and here i thought it was lack of being able to get laid with chicks that made guys resort to drastic measures like turning gay for sex.

Who said anything about sex?

*bad memories of herm thread*

Let's not get into this again D:

RlctntFr said:
I was looking at post #12737 and realized that, while it looks like a simple enough image, without knowing the artist's original intent I think it's an interesting image that says a lot about art and sexuality. At first glance it looks like a regular pinup of a woman character, but the fact that the outline for the chest doesn't recede back towards the body makes the entire image ambiguous.

It could be a woman with small breasts. It could be a woman with normal breasts and a loose vest. It could be a drawing error. <i>Or</i> it could be a prepubescent girl. Or it could be a crossdressing guy. If that one line veered back just a tiny bit the ambiguity would be removed.
And this is all besides the fact that whatever it is has cervine ears and tail, and the fact that it doesn't actually show much nudity in the first place.

I'm sure this isn't an isolated incident, but this is the only time I've actually sat and thought about it for awhile.

And I still can't decide how to tag the damn thing.

You know, a lot of this could be solved if a few folks (like furry artists) would just take the time to learn the differences between male and female anatomy. Now this isn't always the rule, but generally one can tell the difference between a correctly drawn female and male. In this case I would assume the hips belong to a female because of the way they are drawn. They are much fuller and rounder (read: wider) than a males hips would be in the same position. The arch of the back and the shoulders and arms? All very supple and lean, much like a woman would be. Males tend to have thicker arms and torsos and less curvature in the back.

There are other stylistic things too; like eye size and shape. Stylized art typically applies gender to eye shape and size, with bigger rounder eyes often being female and smaller, more angular eyes being male.

Plus lipstick.

If anything, I would say this image is female.

deadjackal said:
You know, a lot of this could be solved if a few folks (like furry artists) would just take the time to learn the differences between male and female anatomy. Now this isn't always the rule, but generally one can tell the difference between a correctly drawn female and male. In this case I would assume the hips belong to a female because of the way they are drawn. They are much fuller and rounder (read: wider) than a males hips would be in the same position. The arch of the back and the shoulders and arms? All very supple and lean, much like a woman would be. Males tend to have thicker arms and torsos and less curvature in the back.

There are other stylistic things too; like eye size and shape. Stylized art typically applies gender to eye shape and size, with bigger rounder eyes often being female and smaller, more angular eyes being male.

Plus lipstick.

If anything, I would say this image is female.

amen brotha

I think what makes it confusing is that putting those qualities on male characters is often the point. So wide hips, small waist, thin arms and shoulders, etc. on a male character will be intended specifically to make him as feminine as possible while still being male. I believe the term is "trap."

I don't really see the point in doing that myself but apparently a fair amount of people get off to it. A lot of the artists who draw for hardblush seem to do that.

edit: for example, I found that image on furaffinity and updated the source to a working link. The character is a young male according to the artist.

Also: http://e621.net/post/index?tags=girly

Deep Thought:

A big reason I've never found a driving force in my life was the realization that in a hundred years, if I'm remembered at all, some kid just like me will ask "Why the hell are we remembering something this guy did a hundred years ago?"

Deep Thought:

Deep Thought:

Deep Thought:

Deep Thought:

Deep Thought:

Deep Thought:

Deep Thought:

Deep Thought: Life is recursive.

the driving force in my life, is when i turn 80, i can say whatever the fuck i want in real life, without repercussions.

RlctntFr said:

edit: for example, I found that image on furaffinity and updated the source to a working link. The character is a young male according to the artist.

e621 runs on tag as you see, not what other people say. helps people find an image, not some weird backstory stuff

temporal_crux said:
Deep Thought:

A big reason I've never found a driving force in my life was the realization that in a hundred years, if I'm remembered at all, some kid just like me will ask "Why the hell are we remembering something this guy did a hundred years ago?"

because you can make a difference in someones life, not everyones. it's a lie, you can't change the world, but you can do it for a few small people, and that's what matters. that and having fun.

deep thought:

if homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, why do they ask for special rights? (i'm not trying to be all inclusive in this, just the ones that complain)

niko_bellic said:
if homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, why do they ask for special rights? (i'm not trying to be all inclusive in this, just the ones that complain)

Every group wants to have above and beyond..

most of us want to just be normal..

niko_bellic said:
deep thought:

if homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, why do they ask for special rights?

Indeed. I don't see straight people getting a "straight pride parade". >-> We'd probably be prosecuted for bashing gays if we did that.

niko_bellic said:
e621 runs on tag as you see, not what other people say. helps people find an image, not some weird backstory stuff

because you can make a difference in someones life, not everyones. it's a lie, you can't change the world, but you can do it for a few small people, and that's what matters. that and having fun.

deep thought:

if homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, why do they ask for special rights? (i'm not trying to be all inclusive in this, just the ones that complain)

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier, in the comments for the post.

I tend to separate regular gays and those in the gay culture. Kind of like how I separate regular furries and those in the fandom.

RlctntFr said:
Kind of like how I separate regular furries and those in the fandom.

i know what you mean. it's the main reason why i just stopped being furry in public, no point in being categorized with the loudmouthed minority

niko_bellic said:
if homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, why do they ask for special rights? (i'm not trying to be all inclusive in this, just the ones that complain)

Burninghart said:
Indeed. I don't see straight people getting a "straight pride parade". >-> We'd probably be prosecuted for bashing gays if we did that.

*yawns* I'm not a huge fan of pride parades, mostly cause it seems to particularly bring out the weirdoes. But I like the idea in theory.

<cliche>You can have straight pride parades when you are legally discriminated against
ALTERNATIVELY
We won't need gay pride parades anymore when we are not legally discriminated against anymore</cliche>

I'm proud of being a lesbian, I'm proud to be included in LGBT, and it's hard not to be when I read about our history and stuff and the things we fought through over the years to start getting basic rights.

But it's not just that... The stuff that still happens to LGBT folks on a regular basis is horrible. Off the top of my head, here is a story I came across a few days ago that is nightmare inducing.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2010/07/the-tragic-story-of-harold-and-clay/
Things like this should never happen to ANYONE. It's things like this which only remind me of how horribly unequal the law is. It's not about wanting special rights, it's about wanting the same legal protection as heterosexuals and heterosexual couples.

*sits down with a bottle of rootbreer and stares at screen wondering what to type, after half scratching his but cheeks as is customary in the morning he reaches for the keys but realizes he's out of root beer so he goes to the kitchen for another bottle and sits back down* (sorry had to lol)

you can hold a public prosesion anywhere at anytime as long as you warn officials you're gonna be taking up their streets, since it does include a couple of basic rights that would be violated if they deny you.

the guy pushed him over the stairs, i can see why they would do that, BUT THEY TOOK HIS CATS D:

if a turtle loses his shell, is he naked, or homeless?

nme22 said:
if a turtle loses his shell, is he naked, or homeless?

He's dead.

RlctntFr said:
He's dead.

right, but does he die naked, or homeless?

RlctntFr said:
He's dead.

right, but does he die naked, or homeless?

nme22 said:
right, but does he die naked, or homeless?

He dies spineless.

A turtle's shell is a really elaborate spine.

it's also a good bowl to cook them in alive. true story, i've seen it done in uruapan, a bit brutal, but that's to going to stop a tasty dish.

niko_bellic said:
it's also a good bowl to cook them in alive. true story, i've seen it done in uruapan, a bit brutal, but that's to going to stop a tasty dish.

i mean how else do they kill them? any other method would either damage the meat, or ruin the taste.

i meant not going to stop. and yea, no point in killing a turtle if it aint gonna taste good

"If a tree falls in the woods and springs back up, but no one is around to see it, does it still freak out the squirrels?"

Lamest joke ever, I know.

Deep thought:

How can we possibly have freedom if everything we do is based on and guided by our values, morals, and obligations?
When one says, "We lack freedom" people imagine that our future course and our choices are set in stone.
Rather, it would seem that we are programmed with ethics and morals (or lack thereof), and we cannot deviate from our own rules.
So, it's not our future that is set in stone. It is ourselves.

*EDIT*
And before I catch flak, I am not saying that being without morals and values and whatnot is somehow better...like one would "truly be free if only they abandon their humanity!"
A lack of, or a disdain for, morality is still a form of morality. And beside, a viewpoint like that is childish.

We are not individuals, rather we are the culmination of all thoughts, harmonic or opposing, that we have ever truly absorbed.

That is to say, we are essentially what the world has made of us.

If your sucked into a black hole, what happens? I went into a deep thinking mood the other day and pondered this. I think that it continues to ingulf you until you reach its center. You then are imploded into extremely dense matter. Or,route #2, your atoms are ripped apart due to extreme gravitational forces and desintegrate. so either you drift apart or become closer toghether, much like the roads of love. (I had to throw some extreme wisdom in there. Cant keep to much of it to myself now )

mosh_grizzly said:
"If a tree falls in the woods and springs back up, but no one is around to see it, does it still freak out the squirrels?"

actually, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, i believe it doesn't make a sound. the reason why? well i believe that a "sound" is only a "sound" when it is perceived by something else. otherwise it's just sound waves (energy), not sound (noun).

nme22 said:
well i believe that a "sound" is only a "sound" when it is perceived by something else.

There would still be other life near by to perceive it.

nme22 said:
otherwise it's just sound waves (energy), not sound (noun).

Those are both nouns.

nme22 said:
i believe it doesn't make a sound.

To make a sound, you simply need a source and medium to transmit the vibrations. We're not talking about whether there is actually a perception of sound, but the production of something that could be potentially audible. Light in distant galaxies still makes color, even if color is only our perception of the light's wavelength. Otherwise, you would have to argue that color in those galaxies wasn't really produced until thousands of years later when it reach our telescopes.

wolves586 said:
If your sucked into a black hole, what happens? I went into a deep thinking mood the other day and pondered this. I think that it continues to ingulf you until you reach its center. You then are imploded into extremely dense matter. Or,route #2, your atoms are ripped apart due to extreme gravitational forces and desintegrate. so either you drift apart or become closer toghether, much like the roads of love. (I had to throw some extreme wisdom in there. Cant keep to much of it to myself now )

you don't cross teh black hole, it was explined in a video somewhere, but basically you get infinitely long and wide, but you never cross.

mosh_grizzly said:
perceptions on freedom

freedom is the ability to be able to do whatever you want, and in a way every one is free. now will we get punished for certain things, yes, but only because we're impeding other's freedom

niko_bellic said:
you don't cross teh black hole, it was explined in a video somewhere, but basically you get infinitely long and wide, but you never cross.

Take everything "science" tells you with a grain of salt. There's no way on earth anybody on this planet actually knows what happens to you in a black hole. How could they, right?

Math doesn't know everything :P

actually, math doesn't know anything because it has no ability to ration. it is absolute however.

niko_bellic said:
actually, math doesn't know anything because it has no ability to ration. it is absolute however.

Tee hee you're so funny.

No but seriously, math is far from perfect.

wolves586 said:
If your sucked into a black hole, what happens?

Probably you're torn apart by tidal forces, your pieces pass through the event horizon, therefore disappear from this universe, and cease to exist at all in singularity :<

IJustBurst said:
Tee hee you're so funny.

No but seriously, math is far from perfect.

2x2 = 4. prove it wrong

niko_bellic said:
2x2 = 4. prove it wrong

In base 3, 2x2=11.

in base 3 yes, but if you don't specify a base, it always defaults to base 10

niko_bellic said:
2x2 = 4. prove it wrong

Math is purely conceptual. All science is, if you think about it, is throwing out explanations for natural occurrences until one them fits well enough to be considered fact.

Math included, though a very stable concept, would be nothing without the already naturally occurring elements of our known universe.

For all we know, there could be a far off solar system where all of our "laws" of physics dont apply in the least.

I guess the point Im trying to make here is that science changes ALL THE TIME, so relying too heavily on it can cripple you.

science is all theory, yes, MATH is not science. it's very standard, it's finite. the only way you can possibly get away with your theory of a varying law is you enter an alternate universe.

niko_bellic said:
science is all theory, yes, MATH is not science. it's very standard, it's finite. the only way you can possibly get away with your theory of a varying law is you enter an alternate universe.

Standard basic math doesn't really exist anyway, it's totally conceptual, so yes, it's perfect. I agree.

But science is not perfect.

IJustBurst said:
Tee hee you're so funny.

No but seriously, math is far from perfect.

See, replace math with science here.

nope, science is all theory, its mostly accurate, it doesn't change most of the time, but i can agree with that because i never disagreed.

niko_bellic said:
nope, science is all theory, its mostly accurate, it doesn't change most of the time, but i can agree with that because i never disagreed.

See but it's those words "mostly accurate."

How do you figure?

I guess the best example of how silly that sounds, is when it was generally considered a fact that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth.

These were considered scientific facts at the time, and they turned out totally wrong. Science, and scientific fact, are totally dependent on how broad our view of the universe is. Science continually changes, and what was right yesterday will be considered foolish and primitive tomorrow.

Deep Thought:

I broke my fucking chair today. How will I sit?

gravity pulls things down. that's a theory, you have never seen anything go up when you drop it under normal conditions, but that doesn't mean one day the gravity switch can be flipped. THAT'S a mostly accurate theory. also,sit on your ass

niko_bellic said:
gravity pulls things down. that's a theory, you have never seen anything go up when you drop it under normal conditions, but that doesn't mean one day the gravity switch can be flipped. THAT'S a mostly accurate theory. also,sit on your ass

Yeah but that theory may not apply EVERYWHERE, you know?

I mean, the way we perceive the universe is pretty childlike if you think about it.

"This is what happens on earth, so it must be like this everywere."

That seems like a very narrow view of all of creation to me.

Also, another brilliant remark from niko_bellic. It's almost as if you KNEW I would sit on my ass eventually. Son of a bitch, you got me again.

it was only a theory ;3 OH DID YOU SEE WHAT I DID THAR YES YOU DID

and yea, but then again anywhere we go to exerts a gravitational pull, no matter how small or big where we land, therefore the theory would still apply to anywhere we go. again, this theory can become void only if we start heading into alternate dimensions/universes, but that's a long way from happening, so for practical purposes, yes, the scientific theories hold 99% of the time

niko_bellic said:
it was only a theory ;3 OH DID YOU SEE WHAT I DID THAR YES YOU DID

and yea, but then again anywhere we go to exerts a gravitational pull, no matter how small or big where we land, therefore the theory would still apply to anywhere we go. again, this theory can become void only if we start heading into alternate dimensions/universes, but that's a long way from happening, so for practical purposes, yes, the scientific theories hold 99% of the time

Ah but that's the train of thought I would warn against.

You dont know it wouldn't work, do you? You haven't been to other planets, you haven't seen what happens there, so you're making assumptions.

So in reality, you're just trusting science to tell you what will happen somewhere else, but you have no idea whether it's true or not.

technically, we HAVE seen it at work, as we can tell that heavenly bodies exert gravitational pulling each other which is why there's galaxies and not just a master cluster fuck of stars everywhere

niko_bellic said:
technically, we HAVE seen it at work, as we can tell that heavenly bodies exert gravitational pulling each other which is why there's galaxies and not just a master cluster fuck of stars everywhere

Look Im not saying it is or isn't fact. I think you're getting caught up in the wrong part of this discussion.

You believe pretty much blindly everything that gets published and fawned over. Yes, in all actuality, gravity is probably a universal concept, but YOU yourself have nothing to prove it and must trust blind faith. THAT is the essence of science. People are telling you what they THINK is happening, and you believe it because they are PROBABLY right.

So, take every scientific fact you hear with a grain of salt. Because in 100 years, the textbooks will be totally different.

actually, i'm a very cynical, person, and i don't believe everything i hear. to say with such certainty would imply that you know me, which you obviosly don't and actually, i CAN observe most things going on around me, and i can prove gravity right to what is known. if i jump, i come back down. will things change, probably, but only the way we THINK it's happening. gravit is gravity is gravity

nme22 said:
actually, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, i believe it doesn't make a sound. the reason why? well i believe that a "sound" is only a "sound" when it is perceived by something else. otherwise it's just sound waves (energy), not sound (noun).

Uhh...buddy? I can call you buddy right? I don't know how to say this, but...that part of my post wasn't even serious. It was a joke, a farce. And also, I said nary a word about sound so...yeah. Hm. Okay! Moving on.

niko_bellic said:
freedom is the ability to be able to do whatever you want, and in a way every one is free. now will we get punished for certain things, yes, but only because we're impeding other's freedom

I'm not arguing semantics here. You say that everyone can do what they want, yes? How can that be so if most of our "options" are blocked off?
Let me put it like this:
Let's say that a person is living in a totally lawless society. Let's call her "Maria". Now, in this environment, Maria can kill, pillage, plunder, and rape without fear for repercussion. However, she was raised by a family that instilled in her positive values, morals, and ethics. So, she does none of these violent actions.
One day, Maria is confronted with a situation, a situation that leaves only three options to consider:
A. Kill
B. Rob
C. Assist

Now, because of the ideologies that were ingrained in her by her family (her "super-ego" as Freud would have called it) she can only choose one option, to help. What's more, if Maria were to encounter similar situations, it could be safely said that she would respond in a similar manner, each and every time.

Do you see what I am saying?

niko_bellic said:
nope, science is all theory, its mostly accurate, it doesn't change most of the time, but i can agree with that because i never disagreed.

Science isn't all theory. Most of it is based on pure, unadulterated observation. What you are talking about is "Theoretical Science", which, as the name implies, is "all theory".

niko_bellic said:

IJustBurst said:

As for you two's discussion using "gravity is a theory" as an example, well...gravity isn't a theory. Gravity is universal fact. Where there is matter, there is gravity.

A "Theory" is a hypothesis, an idea, that has not been tested (whether it's because it's impossible to do so or no one has gotten around to do it), yet is accepted by a majority as the most likely explanation for an event. Basically, it's just speculation, and gravity is NOT speculation.

mosh_grizzly said:
A "Theory" is a hypothesis, an idea, that has not been tested (whether it's because it's impossible to do so or no one has gotten around to do it), yet is accepted by a majority as the most likely explanation for an event. Basically, it's just speculation, and gravity is NOT speculation.

BZZZZZT.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. A theory <i>is</i> something that has been tested, and hasn't been disproven. Learn some basic scientific method, please?

Yes, gravity is indeed a theory. One that's held up in ~100% of non extradimensional-string-theory-megaphysics stuff for a good long time now. Things don't become 'facts' after a given period of time, that's not how science works.

nme22 said:

if what has been learned cannot be forgotten
then i have learned little from school
and much from the world it has kept me from.

Who let Jack Handey in?

mosh_grizzly said:
(her "super-ego" as Freud would have called it)

you lost your credibility there, freudian techniques have been proven to be outdated and farse.

mosh_grizzly said:

As for you two's discussion using "gravity is a theory" as an example, well...gravity isn't a theory. Gravity is universal fact. Where there is matter, there is gravity.

buzzed like a vuvuzela, learn 2 science

acct0283476 said:
BZZZZZT.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. A theory <i>is</i> something that has been tested, and hasn't been disproven. Learn some basic scientific method, please?

Yes, gravity is indeed a theory. One that's held up in ~100% of non extradimensional-string-theory-megaphysics stuff for a good long time now. Things don't become 'facts' after a given period of time, that's not how science works.

Okay, you got me with the definition of theory. I was wrong; I don't know where I came up with that.
However, I gotta ask why you think gravity is a theory. I was taught it was a fundamental law of nature. I mean, forgive me if I'm being dense...

because there is no law to say that it cannot happen.

'Fundamental laws' / 'laws of nature' / 'physical laws', et cetera -- are essentially a certain type of theory, being simple, universal, and absolute. That does not make them irrefutable, however -- it may turn out that an accepted law was only an approximation of the actual way things work, or the like. I suppose technically they <i>aren't</i> considered theories, but they're still more-or-less open to change by the same scientific method that theories are.

<b>EDIT:</b>
What defines a law as opposed to a theory, basically, is that what a law describes happens with no apparent cause, whereas a theory describes the cause, effect, and apparent <i>reason</i> for something. So laws <i>are</i> a lot less likely to be changed with further information.

However, laws will only get you as far as basic physics. If you want, say, geology, meteorology, or biology? Those are strictly within the realms of 'experimental science', and not for lack of proof. Things can't 'graduate' to laws, it's just not how the system is organized.

niko_bellic said:
you lost your credibility there, freudian techniques have been proven to be outdated and farse.
buzzed like a vuvuzela, learn 2 science

But I wasn't using "Freudian techniques", all I did was reference him. That example had nothing to do with him.

niko_bellic said:
because there is no law to say that it cannot happen.

What? There is no law to say what cannot happen? I'm not following you dude.

acct0283476 said:
'Fundamental laws' / 'laws of nature' / 'physical laws', et cetera -- are essentially a certain type of theory, being simple, universal, and absolute. That does not make them irrefutable, however -- it may turn out that an accepted law was only an approximation of the actual way things work, or the like. I suppose technically they <i>aren't</i> considered theories, but they're still more-or-less open to change by the same scientific method that theories are.

Okay, right, gotcha. You were basically saying that we never know the whole state of affairs, that, in truth, we can never understand something 100%. Alright, I can respect that.

People take basic concepts, laws and stuff, build up a theory over it and it still works where it does apply. Some day theory just won't work and people build up a new one.

As example — classical mechanics. There is no inertial frame of reference in our world and it doesn't work at small distances and high speeds, but it still applies to the most of our world.

And Ernst Mach already said that people shouldn't give a shit about understanding something 100%

All of you are being idiots.

Science is neither infallibly rigid. It's also not a crackpot of random ideas with no reliability at all

Science is the process of gradually explaining the universe and all it's mechanisms. Sometimes it has inaccuracies, however, it continuously weeds out inaccuracies, and progresses towards a state of non-error. Due to the introduction of the scientific method, we have fixed the most egregious errors, such as the classic example of geocentric Earth.

While I'm quite certain that there will continue to be "scientific" statements made from time to time which are utter hogwash (E.G. Homeopathy), it is simple to understand why they are not true science. They are not theories. They are not subject to repetition. They are not subject to the scientific method. They are not subject to peer review. That is why they are not science.

And that is what makes the difference between science and faith. Only a fool believes in non-science.

mosh_grizzly said:
Science isn't all theory. Most of it is based on pure, unadulterated observation. What you are talking about is "Theoretical Science", which, as the name implies, is "all theory".

As for you two's discussion using "gravity is a theory" as an example, well...gravity isn't a theory. Gravity is universal fact. Where there is matter, there is gravity.

A "Theory" is a hypothesis, an idea, that has not been tested (whether it's because it's impossible to do so or no one has gotten around to do it), yet is accepted by a majority as the most likely explanation for an event. Basically, it's just speculation, and gravity is NOT speculation.

That is an incorrect definition of Scientific Theory. Theories are not the same as Hypotheses.

In a nutshell, the simplest definition for a theory is: An idea which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and is highly unlikely to ever be proven false, but still could use more understanding into it's exact mechanics.

A real scientific theory has been tested to death before it can be classified as a theory.

That is why gravity is still classified as a theory, there are still details about how it works that we do not fully understand, and thus there is still research and learning to be done on the subject of exactly why and how it works. Not because gravity might somehow be proven wrong one day. But rather because it may need to be revised and tweaked to be more accurate.

A simple example of the "we don't know everything there is about gravity" is the black hole discussion referenced earlier. That is a place where we need more understanding, and possibly slight tweaking of the theory to make it more accurate representation of the universe.

EDIT: Another excellent example was when Uranus was discovered. The planet did not rotate around the sun according to the theories put forth by Newtonian physics. This lead to the re-examination of the theory as well as looking into possible answers for this incongruence. Which of course, as we all know, lead to the discovery of Pluto, and no altering to Newtonian physics at the time.

I think Marbles might be the only person who actually understood the point I was trying to make in this thread ;_;