The Truth about the Starting Strength Method

[Jonathon Sullivan]

And science doesn't lead you anywhere. It simply gives us facts.

I disagree with all of this.

And as to semantics, "is" sure can be a difficult word, can't it?

[Mark Rippetoe]

And science doesn't lead you anywhere. It simply gives us facts. What we do with them comes from different fields entirely.

No, George, wrong this time. Archeology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and genetics et al give us facts. Broader science gives us an explanation for the facts: the theory of evolution.

[Eric K]

No, George, wrong this time. Archeology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and genetics et al give us facts. Broader science gives us an explanation for the facts: the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution explains the facts of biology, but it doesn't tell anyone what to do with those facts.

[Mark Rippetoe]

What the hell does this mean, Erik? "What to do with those facts."?

[Eric K]

What the hell does this mean, Erik? "What to do with those facts."?

George said that science doesn't lead us anywhere. You and Jon seem to disagree and you gave the example of evolution, but the statement: the variation in allele frequency among breeding populations guided by reproductive success explains why all living things fall into a nested hierarchy of phylogeny represents a brief synopsis of evolution, but whether (or how) one uses that information depends on some other motivation. Where in that explanation of the facts, or in the scientific process, is there any guidance? The process of science tells us how to test ideas, but the desire to test ideas comes from from somewhere else.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I guess the desire to test ideas comes from God? Is that what this means?

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Somebody (Rip of all people) has brought GOD into the discussion.

Scientific fact, yo: That is pathognomic of a derailed thread.

[Mark Rippetoe]

In my defense, I didn't use Hitler.

[George Christiansen]

I disagree with all of this.

I'll get over it.....especially considering how poorly you understood the last comment of mine that you responded to.

And as to semantics, "is" sure can be a difficult word, can't it?

Especially if one ignores the context it is used in.

No, George, wrong this time. Archeology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and genetics et al give us facts. Broader science gives us an explanation for the facts: the theory of evolution.

So everyone will come to the same conclusions/theories when they agree on what the individual facts are? Those facts will force you to come to particular conclusion? The biases you bring to the facts will have no bearing on how you interpret those facts?

Certainly there are plenty of disagreements because one or both sides is not privy to the facts of the matter,which leads one or both sides to be arguing from ignorance or misinformation, but plenty of different conclusions/theories agree on the facts yet come to different conclusions.

As to particular scientific theories, they are repeatedly modified or disregarded because of facts turning out to not be facts, but also by new facts showing up that change how we interpret or piece together the facts we previously had. In the latter case it is not that the facts are wrong and they certainly didn't lead us to the false conclusions that needed to be corrected.

Maybe, in theory, enough facts will force you into right thinking, but we certainly cannot prove any such think scientifically yet.



Bur none of that really has much to do with my comment that you are trying to correct here, which was a reply to another comment:

'Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.' cannot lead you very far... it does not tell you what to do.

Emphasis mine.

Science does not lead you anywhere in the sense of telling you what to do....apart from the possible exception of how to approach thing via the scientific method.

[Mark Rippetoe]

So everyone will come to the same conclusions/theories when they agree on what the individual facts are? Those facts will force you to come to particular conclusion? The biases you bring to the facts will have no bearing on how you interpret those facts?

Obviously not, because there are "creation scientists."

Certainly there are plenty of disagreements because one or both sides is not privy to the facts of the matter,which leads one or both sides to be arguing from ignorance or misinformation, but plenty of different conclusions/theories agree on the facts yet come to different conclusions.

Facts are secret? Theories compete, some win. The Demon Possession Theory of Disease has been largely supplanted by the germs explanation. The germ guys were not hiding the facts.

As to particular scientific theories, they are repeatedly modified or disregarded because of facts turning out to not be facts, but also by new facts showing up that change how we interpret or piece together the facts we previously had. In the latter case it is not that the facts are wrong and they certainly didn't lead us to the false conclusions that needed to be corrected.

And the scientists do this. Not the priests.

Maybe, in theory, enough facts will force you into right thinking, but we certainly cannot prove any such think scientifically yet.

I'm confused. Despite all the facts, we still have Intelligent Designers. Please clarify your point here.

Bur none of that really has much to do with my comment that you are trying to correct here, which was a reply to another comment: 'Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.' cannot lead you very far... it does not tell you what to do.

Why do you and Erik want science to tell you what to do??? Again, what the hell are you talking about?