# Disagreeing is ignorance **URL:** \ **Category:** Out Of Pod Experience\ **Created:** [November 14, 2023, 6:14am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708 "2023-11-14T06:14:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Uriel\_the\_Flame](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/uriel_the_flame/32/490165_2.png) [@Uriel\_the\_Flame](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Uriel_the_Flame)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2023, 7:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/63 "2023-11-15T19:48:48Z")
[![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/6/3/0/630558a65d9f010316921b47cd02923a2d401a5e.jpeg "Homer Simpson - Nerd!!") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6l8MFdTaPE) ---
**Author:** ![Altara\_Zemara](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/altara_zemara/32/390110_2.png) [@Altara\_Zemara](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Altara_Zemara)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2023, 10:13pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/64 "2023-11-15T22:13:05Z")
> [@stefnia\_Freir](#): > > Newton’s law of gravity was proven wrong when Newtonian gravity and mechanics got men to the Moon. It would be more accurate to say Newton does not deal with exceptional circumstances. I’m not really into all this ‘wrong’ business, as really _every_ scientific theory is ‘wrong’ ultimately. Most scientists now consider that even Einstein does not give the complete picture. There will probably never be any ultimate ‘correct’ testable theory, because the deeper one goes the less testable theories become. A machine to test for the existence of gravitons would, for example, need to be larger than the Earth’s orbit. It is better to see scientific theories as ‘useful’ rather than ‘correct’. ---
**Author:** ![stefnia\_Freir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stefnia_freir/32/390048_2.png) [@stefnia\_Freir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/stefnia_Freir)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2023, 10:19pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/65 "2023-11-15T22:19:18Z")
> [@Altara\_Zemara](#): > > I’m not really into all this ‘wrong’ business, as really _every_ scientific theory is ‘wrong’ ultimately. But this is precisely my point. Every law and every theory is debatable. > [@Altara\_Zemara](#): > > It is better to see scientific theories as ‘useful’ rather than ‘correct’. yes, that is what I wrote before : > [@stefnia\_Freir](#): > > This law is usually technically correct, as in it produces acceptable results, yet it is scientifically proven wrong. All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others. Scientific knowledge is wrong, but it’s the best we can have by definition. ---
**Author:** ![Wadiest\_Yong](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/wadiest_yong/32/426921_2.png) [@Wadiest\_Yong](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Wadiest_Yong)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2023, 9:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/66 "2023-11-17T09:27:02Z")
The word “wrong” is the point of contention here. Use “incomplete” or “unsatisfactory” for certain cases and you’ll still encompass gravitation itself and allow general relativity to encompass Newton’s universal law of gravitation (which it does). ---
**Author:** ![stefnia\_Freir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stefnia_freir/32/390048_2.png) [@stefnia\_Freir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/stefnia_Freir)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2023, 11:30am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/67 "2023-11-17T11:30:09Z")
The word “debatable” is the point of contention. Wrong is a synonym for “invalid” . A (scientific) law is _invalidated_ by definition when there is an experiment that contradicts its predictions. A law can not be proven right ; it can however be proven wrong. To _debate_ a law is to discuss if some experiments DO invalidate that law. It already happened before Mercury’s problem, with the neptun orbit problem. However the subsequent discovery of uranus settled this case as “non invalidating” ; there was nevertheless a debate. Note that to debate a law is not a goal in itself. The goal is, to debate the impact of the results of an experimentation (assuming the experimentation itself has already been validated). If some result prove the law wrong, then the law is de facto debated. Claiming that scientific laws can’t be debated is a complete misconception of what science is. > [@stefnia\_Freir](#): > > There is always a possibility to debate. That’s the nature of science. Sometimes your definitions needs to be changed, sometimes some results seem to contradict an established rule. > To believe that humanity can transcend reality and reach a universal truth is a dogma. > To claim that science gives access to an indisputable truth is religion. Science with a truth is but another religion. ---
**Author:** ![Wadiest\_Yong](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/wadiest_yong/32/426921_2.png) [@Wadiest\_Yong](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Wadiest_Yong)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2023, 12:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/68 "2023-11-17T12:55:34Z")
You can call the usual check on **applicability** of any scientific theory a “debate” if that is what you like. That usual check was never in question. What I and Altara have tried to make you understand is that the word “wrong” is the point of contention. The point of contention is NOT that scientific theories are under constant review to determine their range of applicability, which is self-evident for anyone familiar with how science works, and which you call “debating”. Once you accept that, you will see there really is no fundamental disagreement here. At least, that is how I see it. ---
**Author:** ![stefnia\_Freir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stefnia_freir/32/390048_2.png) [@stefnia\_Freir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/stefnia_Freir)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2023, 1:54pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/69 "2023-11-17T13:54:48Z")
> [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > The point of contention is NOT that scientific theories are under constant review Yes it is. You affirmed they can’t be debated by science : > [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > You may have overlooked it, but my post was about facts and measurables… Those are not “debatable” any more than the law of gravity or the density of gold. > [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > Scientists don’t debate the law of gravity nor the density of gold (for conditions see above). That would be a waste of precious time. THAT is the reason I told you that laws are still debated. Because that discourse is the one of a zealot masquerading science as a validation for his opinions. I have nothing against religions, but I hate liars who pretend to do science when they solely preach their dogma. Give to Newton what belongs to Newton and to God what belongs to God. ---
**Author:** ![Sienna\_Massilia](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sienna_massilia/32/390388_2.png) [@Sienna\_Massilia](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sienna_Massilia)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2023, 3:23pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/70 "2023-11-17T15:23:59Z")
It’s been established in this thread that disagreeing isn’t ignorance… or stupid. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Wadiest\_Yong](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/wadiest_yong/32/426921_2.png) [@Wadiest\_Yong](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Wadiest_Yong)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2023, 5:22pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/72 "2023-11-17T17:22:39Z")
I take it you’re not scientist then. Here, I’ll help you out of your fanatic’s misery, killing your strawman argument many posts ago. > [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > Science is self-criticizing by the fact that results, methods, theories, hypotheses are _public_, there to be challenged by experiment by as many people as want to verify the validity. > [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > Conflicting results are verified, challenged, studied, and if they do show the current knowledge to be flawed then a better theory comes to replace it. This process happens at the edge of progress in the understanding. Which part are you not able to grasp ? The English part ? If you knew half of what you think you know, you’d know that even that half is flawed. And that is mainly due to the cursory reading you do. But since you’re not willing to consider context, neither in text nor in scientific theory, that is not a surprise. Do you even see your own zealotry ? ---
**Author:** ![Ax\_l\_Thorne](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ax_l_thorne/32/412835_2.png) [@Ax\_l\_Thorne](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ax_l_Thorne)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 3:29am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/73 "2023-11-18T03:29:48Z")
> [@Sienna\_Massilia](#): > > It’s been established in this thread that disagreeing isn’t ignorance… or stupid. Stop disagreeing with me! It’s so stupid _and_ ignorant! Geesh. 😾 ---
**Author:** ![Sienna\_Massilia](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sienna_massilia/32/390388_2.png) [@Sienna\_Massilia](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sienna_Massilia)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 10:50am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/74 "2023-11-18T10:50:02Z")
![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/f/0/2/f02855f322a3c08a9043cbaf39e9e1969086fa34.gif "Angry How Dare You GIF by Sky - Find & Share on GIPHY") ---
**Author:** ![stefnia\_Freir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stefnia_freir/32/390048_2.png) [@stefnia\_Freir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/stefnia_Freir)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 11:10am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/75 "2023-11-18T11:10:48Z")
More personal attacks, useless generalities. The point of contention was what I posted. You could have just said “I was wrong, my bad” but then went on a rage of stupid arguments to prove Newton’s law was right. Having claimed something different later does not change what the point of contention was. You claimed laws can’t be debated. That was stupid, and zealotry. Anyone can make mistakes, but erare humanum, perseverare diabolicum. ---
**Author:** ![Sienna\_Massilia](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sienna_massilia/32/390388_2.png) [@Sienna\_Massilia](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sienna_Massilia)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 3:10pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/76 "2023-11-18T15:10:42Z")
Did you know that when Newton was just three years old, his mother, Hannah Ayscough, left him in the care of his maternal grandmother in order to live with her new husband? 🤢🤮 ---
**Author:** ![Wadiest\_Yong](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/wadiest_yong/32/426921_2.png) [@Wadiest\_Yong](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Wadiest_Yong)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 6:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/77 "2023-11-18T18:55:42Z")
Hahahahahahaha. > [@stefnia\_Freir](#): > > The point of contention was what I posted. Not from my perspective, lol. Newton’s universal law of gravitation gives the right numerical output, when used appropriately i.e, within its framework, That that framework doesn’t include the minutiae of Mercury only means that at least one new factor comes into play. Then it’s up to scientists to figure out how and why and adjust theory. The basis is still valid, the framework has been established clearer. Science knows when to use it, and when to apply extra corrections. Yes. I said that debating established laws was a waste of precious time. You can call that zealotry. Now you can be Geten nasty about it. But it will still get people to the moon and back, however wrong you may think that law is. Useless generalities ? Well, instead of keeping your jaws closed on where the numericals are not accurate enough and growling “wrong”, it would pay off to see the larger, general picture, and broaden your mindset that wants everything to be ideal and perfect. > [@Sienna\_Massilia](#): > > Did you know that when Newton was just three years old, _etc_ Finished that book on Cleo, have you ? ---
**Author:** ![stefnia\_Freir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stefnia_freir/32/390048_2.png) [@stefnia\_Freir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/stefnia_Freir)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 7:01pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/78 "2023-11-18T19:01:54Z")
> [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > Not from my perspective, lol. Sure, you can claim you did not write what I disagreed with. But it’s child play. > [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > Newton’s universal law of gravitation gives the right numerical output, It does not. ---
**Author:** ![Wadiest\_Yong](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/wadiest_yong/32/426921_2.png) [@Wadiest\_Yong](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Wadiest_Yong)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 7:27pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/79 "2023-11-18T19:27:00Z")
At least show some intellectual honesty and do the full quote: > [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > Newton’s universal law of gravitation gives the right numerical output, when used appropriately i.e, within its framework, > [@stefnia\_Freir](#): > > Sure, you can claim you did not write what I disagreed with. Lol, I literally repeated what I said so many posts ago: > [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > Yes. I said that debating established laws was a waste of precious time. Look ☝. It’s there !!! If the point of contention is me having that viewpoint, well, it’s not going to change. I tried explaining why, I tried explaining how, I tried explaining when, I tried explaining the basis for the viewpoint. You sweep everything aside, which is your right, of course. Yet you still have to come up with an alternative, tens of posts later, let alone a precise basis for all that "wrong"ness. Odd, isn’t it. Just pointing that out. I can’t help but wonder if that opinion of yours is the one that makes people distrust science and its achievements over the last 200+ years. Fashionable, contemporary, but counterproductive. _typed under 10% TiDi in Cloud Ring…_ 🥳 ---
**Author:** ![stefnia\_Freir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stefnia_freir/32/390048_2.png) [@stefnia\_Freir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/stefnia_Freir)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 7:51pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/80 "2023-11-18T19:51:59Z")
> [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > At least show some intellectual honesty and do the full quote: It still does not. You can claim whatever you want, Newton’s law did not predict correctly the correct number, when applied correctly. The predictions made by this law did not match the observations. Then when it was proven the observation were not missing data (eg an unknown planet), the law was therefore was proven wrong : it was no more a law. And this impact our everyday, including positioning using space-based satellites. You are making up a specific framework which does not exist. This is inane blabbering and _a posteriori_ justification of what was, in reality, an invalidation of the law. > [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > I tried explaining why, I tried explaining how, I tried explaining when No. You tried to make up an explanation of why scientific laws can’t be debated, which is by essence wrong. You can try to claim that 1+1=3, then make up an explanation. Any explanation you will come up with will be a nonsense. Because by _definition_ 1+1!=3 The contention point, is that people _can_, and as a matter of fact _do_, debate the laws of gravitation. ---
**Author:** ![Sienna\_Massilia](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sienna_massilia/32/390388_2.png) [@Sienna\_Massilia](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sienna_Massilia)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 9:24pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/81 "2023-11-18T21:24:32Z")
Not at all. I’m savoring this one. 😋 > [@Wadiest\_Yong](#): > > But it will still get people to the moon and back, however wrong you may think that law is. And for people to conduct important experiments up there, including testing certain theories: [https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo\_15\_feather\_drop.html](https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html) I think that’s neat what he did. ---
**Author:** ![Wadiest\_Yong](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/wadiest_yong/32/426921_2.png) [@Wadiest\_Yong](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Wadiest_Yong)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 10:17pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/82 "2023-11-18T22:17:55Z")
> [@stefnia\_Freir](#): > > You can try to claim that 1+1=3 Only … I didn’t, and I wouldn’t even try. You make that up, like the rest of the regurgitated stuff, lol. Honesty indeed, ha. Btw, just out of curiosity… Any thoughts on the ideal gas law ? Shouldn’t be a law ? > [@Sienna\_Massilia](#): > > I think that’s neat what he did. It ended doubts that certain people had, doubts that led to certain debates 😉 Maybe they had those debates under heavy TiDi for 5 hrs straight. P.S. Seen the '63 Cleo movie ? Yes, they ran out of money in the end, nearly brought the studio to its knees too, and was (in)famous for the amorous escapades of its two main actors. Still worth a view, as well as the 2 hr documentary on its making. It is of course a holywood narration. ---
**Author:** ![Skyla\_Amarr](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/skyla_amarr/32/392813_2.png) [@Skyla\_Amarr](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Skyla_Amarr)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2023, 11:10pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708/83 "2023-11-18T23:10:09Z")
That was quality. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708.md?page=3) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/disagreeing-is-ignorance/427708.md?page=5)