 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 10, 2014 - 9:48 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
When hundreds of scientists take the same information and come to the same independent conclusions its called a scientific fact.
But it has to be provable and backed up. It's neither a simple opinion or unproven theory.
Well, not really. Science is not about proof, it is about eliminating alternatives and developing a working model that best fits our empirical observations. A theory is generally based on a preponderance of evidence -- not a statement of proof -- and will be modified or discarded as and when better working models are found or new evidence is discovered (and confirmed) that contradicts or expands on our previous understanding. There are often competing theories, more-or-less equally plausible, attempting to explain something, and often a debate ends (for a time, at least) not because one side disproves the other, but because one school of thought gets tired of arguing about it (or gets old and dies) and the other is free to move on unopposed. And, yes, scientists, just like everyone else, get caught up in their ideas and opinions and sometimes an idea that turns out to be on the right track gets shouted down or discarded in favor of some other theory that turns out to be quite wrong, but ultimately the preponderance of evidence will vindicate the original idea. Science is humble and self-correcting, if it's being practiced correctly.
A theory is not proof. But there are scientific facts. Certain elements when mixed together act a certain way, always. The quality of air can be measured for thousands of years proving the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is man made. Etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 10, 2014 - 9:57 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dyfrynt
(Member)
|
Am I the only one who finds he and the show he hosts smug, tiresome and close-minded? He's like an anti-scientist to me. Scientists are supposed to be interested in every theory and possibility. All the maybes and what ifs. Excited by them, even. He insists everything is black and white. As if the word, "might" is absent from his vocabulary. He strikes me as the scientific equivalent of a right-wing fundamentalist. There's really no difference. It's their way, PERIOD! There is no place for discussion of any other theory or idea. Everything that science, isn't! Sagan was as smug, by I don't recall him being as close-minded. His appeal is, utterly, lost on me.
How did this rant end up in a discussion of the Top 10 SF movies? It is a peculiarity of this site that at some point some conservative will go off the deep end about something completely unrelated to the discussion. Happens over and over and over again.
Now if FSM stood for Fundamentalist Strength & Might, I could see the logic. Could'a sworn though it stands for Film Score Monthly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 10, 2014 - 11:18 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
I couldn't care less what Neil DeGrasse Tyson's list of favorite sci-fi films is. Am I the only one who finds he and the show he hosts smug, tiresome and close-minded? He's like an anti-scientist to me. Scientists are supposed to be interested in every theory and possibility. All the maybes and what ifs. Excited by them, even. He insists everything is black and white. As if the word, "might" is absent from his vocabulary. He strikes me as the scientific equivalent of a right-wing fundamentalist. There's really no difference. It's their way, PERIOD! There is no place for discussion of any other theory or idea. Everything that science, isn't! Sagan was as smug, by I don't recall him being as close-minded. His appeal is, utterly, lost on me.
That's exactly not what he is, actually (with all due respect).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MONDAY, JUNE 9
JOHN CARTER---director/co-writer Andrew Stanton tweeted that he was working on two sequels to the original movie. He tweeted about GODS OF MARS, "Could have been cool. Had big plans,,," and commented on WARLORD OF MARS, "That would have led to even bigger plans." He also posted logos for the sequels.
Considering what the men looked like in the first movie, the makeup people better stock up on the depilatory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I declare 1960's VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED my favorite sci-fi film, people generally say, isn't that a horror film? Not to me it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I declare 1960's VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED my favorite sci-fi film, people generally say, isn't that a horror film? Not to me it isn't.
I tend to agree with you; it's primarily sci-fi.
Wyndham wrote several other books, of which only one that I know of, DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS, has been filmed, at least twice.
But his sci-fi novel RE-BIRTH is one of his best, about a post-apocalyptic world, where people born with birth defects, presumably due to lingering radiation, are shunned.
I saw VOTD back when it first came out. I had been walking around the house for weeks, intoning the words, "Village of the DAMNED!", which at that time was bordering on swearing, but my mother, to mollify me, finally took me to see it, and was impressed enough by it that she began reading Wyndham's books.
It's really a masterful film, though I think one of the things that really makes it intense is the creepy performance by child actor Martin Stephens. I can still see him talking in that matter-of-fact tone, with those eerie, hypnotic, ice-white eyes.
And that last shot is amazing, shows just enough to provide a last shocking view....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
