It is belief because there are many things that scientist doesn't agree, and if when they agree that doesn't mean they are right. But in schools and in the media they present things the most probable things as facts so we could function. But sometimes they just advertise some very discutable things as very probable, because it is in someone's interest, but that's another story. After all why are you all arguing about when Carlin agreed...
@CYaN1c1oWN No offence but you should go back to high school and finally graduate.No wait.I meant first grade.Graduate from first grade and maybe then you will be qualified to decently discuss about science.
@CYaN1c1oWN It's reasonable to expect a retaliation reply since my previous comment is a little hard on you,but I won't answer.I don't have conversations with people who ignore the definition of core concepts like science.
I think he was being polite about the word "belief" to put it nicely. I have wondered about the theory of a recirculating torus along with Gauss's Law which could maybe explain the red and blue shift. Maybe the acceleration of space is an illusion or just part of one enormous cycle. What ever it is, yep, take the facts as they come!
Religion is a vigiland refusal to question transparent "answers" that a bunch of lunatics pulled out of their asses millenia ago, while sience is a vigilant search for solid answers and proof to support them.
Here we go again. NO, it can never be the same "beleif" in science as in religion. Science seeks answers to questions by gathering information that could (or is) be evidence of facts. Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Geology, Palaentology, Astronomy, Technology... Art, Music, Philosophy, Literature; ALL asking questions and searches. RELIGION, on the other hand, just have the answers (written down thousand of years ago). Carlin makes a gentlemans response to an ignorant interviewer.
The interviewer seems upset and by asking "How do they know the earth is 21 billion years old?" he tries to challenge George Carlin, but fails because he is too stupid to wrap his mind around complicated things.
@Storyboard912 nothing will literally put you in a nice place after you die. You are dead then. How nice for religious people that there are no witnesses from heaven that can tell us about it or document it? Cause there is no dying and coming back. How are Facts proven with science and tests a bad thing- or something to call lies when all the proof is available for anyone to see?
@theremixphilly if you could tell me what an unproven fact is, i'd be very thankful mr scientist. could it be something you believe, but couldn't proof yet? like the THEORY of evolution? where is your missing link? ooops - did i say "believe"? sorry for prooving you wrong
@obsidianmeteorite unproven fact -- I meant a fact that is in the process of being proven. I believe the word YOU were looking for is proven - not proof . LOL! You also are looking for the word proving--- not prooving. and no you did NOT prove me wrong because- science unlike religion has proof (theories that were tried and found true) against things religion said were the opposite of the facts science has proven(too many to list). Religion can't PROVE anything though.
@theremixphilly "a fact that's in the process of being proven".... like god created the world in seven days? it's also a "fact" that is in the process of being proven. sorry, english is not my native language, next time we can discuss in mine. i hope you are fit in german. i don't say that science is wrong. but it's not scientific to say for example "there is no life after death". we don't know that, it's a matter of belief. you also belief. whatever it is. like god doesn't exist
@obsidianmeteorite try to prove that there is no god. ask a scientist what love is. science is a nice tool, but some people use it like a religion. like "my god is better than yours!". some people use science as their god. no prob, they can do whatever they want. but don't tell me it has nothing to do with belief. 1000 years ago the earth was a disc, now it's a ball, in 20 years the universe might be a 234-dimensional donut. science like that is belief, it's not eternal at all
@obsidianmeteorite scientists can tell you what love is just as easily as looking it up in a dictionary. in 20 years the world will not be deemed by scientists that it is a 1234 d Doughnut. Cause it has been proven for years and decades through space travel. Once it has been proven - there is no changing if the earth is round. When things are proven - tried and proven there is not changing that. Litmus strips are not believing things are acids or bases.Science is not a belief.
@obsidianmeteorite you decided to chime in on an english thread- and there is a red line (spell check) under words not spelled right. so- no. yes- your first sentence is a belief- it is when it is tested and proven true that it is fact. I don't see how facts that have been proven through science are beliefs. They are not. Thing is - proving something DOES exist is important. Believer must prove it. Prove existence of it - there is too much evidence & out weighs the belief.
@theremixphilly Whats with the caps, like that makes your statement more correct... Science is mainly theories actually. The theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, or even theory of gravity. They are humans way of systemising the world. And humans can't actually do that flawlessly. Our grasp on reality is not so accurate as to say that these theories are 100% correct. They are theories that make most sense to most people.
@EvolvingTruthSeeker try taking the hippiness out of that statement please. cause 1=1 does equal 2. A may turn into B the next time- but it is documented and tested. Religion just trust some guy that said GOD told him. no tests or documentation of those tests. Science stops being theory and philosophy once it is proven fact. There are proven facts though it's late now - I"m tired and going to sleep for now..
@theremixphilly Other than "something is happening". Prove something to me? anything? show me proof. There is absolutely no way of proofing that this is not all an illusion, no way! Therefore, nothing is provable. (Oh, and btw. there is nothing "hippie" about waht Im saying. Its philosophy.
@EvolvingTruthSeeker I'm not one to youtube argue and shit, so don't even expect further replies from me. First of all, fuck your philosophy. 1+1=2 because that is how math started out. Math is always SURE. No matter what, because it's not natural, it's all hypothetical. It's like a parallel universe with an UNBENDABLE set of rules (with some exceptions of course, when the actual rules say it is bendable. One more example? 'Light is shiny'. That is true because I can see you because of it. End.
There is nothing that can be proven right, you can only prove or not prove it wrong. Albert Einstein said that there thousand of evidence couldn't prove he is right, but one is enough to prove he is wrong. There are many things in our science's history that were considered as facts and than proven wrong. And there will be.
@killer6468 I can go in deeper debate in that what you sad "proven by what we know" - what we know has to be a fact to be valid in science, and again what proves that fact? What we know? :) Do you get it now where I'm aiming at?
@theremixphilly Scientist are what we call the modern day high priest, in the old days the pagan priest would say sacrifice you virgin daughters to my sun god or the sun will be blotted out, so they did. today if a scientist says the sky is falling and we need to abandon carbon based fuels or the world will end we submit. The same game, The same con artist and they've been playing this game for 10,000 years.
@mechanicalbu11 difference is- science has proof to back it up. the whole sacrifice a virgin thing is totally proven to be bull shit cause only certain groups of people would do that and what about the other groups that didn't do that- there were no negative effects on them because they DIDN"T do it. Science = facts = Religion negates facts so they can keep the weak and easily persuaded going on with their faith with nothing backing it up. Show proof.
@theremixphilly Scientist, our modern high priests wish us to sacrifice our use of carbon fuels when they have not proven that we should, they lied about atmospheric global warming to force us by legislation to give up our carbon fuels. when they "the elite" will not do the same. in my opinion scientist manufacture proof in order to mold the agenda. and if Galileo was still alive today he still would be placed under house arrest for daring to say AGW was fake.Science = Religion
@mechanicalbu11 - Global warming is a lie? Now that is just stupid. There is a bunch of proof that global warming is real. We are seeing the effects of it now. That is the reason there is so much talk about it. You don't Make up facts- that's the great thing about facts- ANYONE can test a fact and get the same result- because it is fact. Religion--- the complete opposite.
@theremixphilly don't be stupid, there are those that propose AWG as real also the same have something to gain by denying people the resources they need to survive. you say proof did the sea levels rise? according to sailors there has been no net increase in sea levels, but guys like Gore say there has. you are seeing normal environmental variations and being told we are the cause. hogwash!
@mechanicalbu11 Normal Variations? Typhoons- earthquakes floods - tsunamis - Major forest tires and widespread fires of huge scales. What is normal about that? and this is not over a long period of time- it is the last few years. This is like end of the world prophesy kind of crap. co no proof? ok whatever - I'm bored with arguing with people that can't prove their point with facts supporting it. I"m out. Enjoy loosing to these other logical people,
@theremixphilly You just proved that it is a belief system. These "facts" you speak of are based on our own skew or perspective of understanding. They are not absolute... They only apply to us and our attempt at understanding. Science is very useful, but it is not a meta-theory. It is, though, one of our most important enterprises. It's more like an evolving Elementary school child at this point, not some genius-like college prodigy.
This interviewer is a moron. Yes science is a belief system, but the only belief scientists hold without proof is that every cause has an effect and vice versa. If anybody can come up with a more profoundly beautiful and simple belief, then I'm all ears. No belief in a god can equal that.
What is up with this bollocks? Science is not the same as religion! Even if you blindly listen to what a scientist says, that's due to an assumption that A) The man is more competent than you in this area (due to his extensive education) and B) he's done the fucking research! There IS no research to be done when it comes to religion. Science is based on observation and evidence! Religion is more or less based on ignoring all observation and evidence to preserve faith! Hardly similar.
What is wrong with the interviewer? What a fucking prick, he's sitting next to one of the greatest detractor of religion and at least he should know his opinion (because everybody knows George Carlin's opinion about this, c'mon) if he's fucking interviewing him. And 21 billion years, WTF was that?
George was one of the greatest. I like to imagine him like, 80 years in the future, as another Nietzsche, something like that. What a great thinker and philosopher he was, behind all his comedy
George had the look of "Are you fucking serious??" after the big dumb question. It turned into an indirect religious debate and denial of all scientific discovery, like the scientific method used to create the microphones and clothing on his body, and it was very bizarre.
George knows that the meaning of life is re-cycling, as confirmed by this important recent message.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by bronze-age scribes.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.
the universe is expanding. Far away galixies are accelerating in speed away from us and as of now phycists are sure why. There's theories about dark matter but nothing concrete yet.
I do believe that there is such a thing as a "cult of science" or a "religion of science". But that's got nothing to do with science itself, it's about stupid people who believe anything if you tell them a scientist said it.
@rollipolioli For those who do, that is :P. I personally don't think there is one, and on top of that: I hope I'm right! Not because I fear hell, no. Even if I got into heaven, an eternity of life is... long. And boring. I do NOT want to live absolutely FOREVER, no sir!
lawl @ fail interviewer 1:07 ..he just couldnt let it slide..sience is NO fuckin believe! science proves itself over and over again in our daily lives..there are thousands of indipendent researches that all point to the same facts.
religion is entirely based on faith...even less...just one book, that requires your faith at pre-hand.and its written by highly questionalble men in a time where nothing was explored.
Science tells us that for all matter there must exist its opposite - antimatter. The same goes for energy. The universe reaches a balance in the same way that 1 + -1 = 0 so why do you need a God to create nothing
Actually the inteviewer is wrong in the following way. Experiencing the awe of and Einstein or a Spinoza at the majesty of the universe as it is (that is as the evidence reveals it) isn't the same as accepting and holding inviolate ideas about that universe. One of the things that characterizes the reality based community is its attachment to reason and evidence. Not revealed "truth." The interview is offering a false equivalence.
But it should be noted, that despite the scientific method itself being a method of infallibility, it is implemented by humans, which are themselves very far from infallible.
And yet we build kickass machines that prove the theory right every friggin time. Even if we shifted methods, the subtantive elements of the information that we uncover are still correct.
Science is not a "belief system". It is based upon the scientific method and trying one's hardest to see if a proposed theory stands up to relentless ways of negating it. Not that any theory is "bulletproof", but when you keep on getting the same answer regardless of what you throw at it, well there's something going on there,
of so many hundred billion other galaxys with their own cosmic horizon. What annoys me is that some factual litteral, boring assholes define the cosmic horizon as the whole universe, while its ridiculously obvious that it isnt.
the age of the known universe. thats why we can safely assume the universe is so many quadrillion times bigger and older then we see as it is, cause it would be kinda awkward if the lifetime of stars would match the age of the universe.
13.7billion lightyears is our cosmic horizon. Its horizon is shaped by the speedlimit of light. Just like a ships horizon on the ocea is determined by the earths circumference.
Theres probably undiscovered space, equall to several sextillion other clusters
Science is a belief system? What an idiot. Science is based on the scientific method which means based on measurable, repeatable experiments; and demonstrating or proving hypothesis. Something religion does not have .All religions are Bullshit, no exception. All religion has is some "book" which is a compilation of contradicting stories about farmers and such, with some arbitrary rules to live by.
trying to outsmart science facts cause u can prove it but believing in superman as a God that makes more sense.i mean God has feelings (love,hate,anger,ect.) like man but powerful,so the first thing comes in mind is superman.in conclusion God is a science fiction and this guy confused the two cause he was busy sucking on someones dick and didnt pay attention in class and missed an important thing.
honestly i cannot begin to explain how annoyed it made me to listen to this dickhead interviewer say "Science is a belief system". He should look at the definition of science and look at what science stands for before saying that. Also "21 billion years old" LMAO enough proof to tell you this guy has NO IDEA what he's talking about.
You can if you involve the sun (stars) and its hydrogen fuel consumption calculated with the mass and the accretion matter around the solar system + newton + einstein is calculaiton that leads us to knowing the earth is 4.5billion years old.
The rocks (matter) earth is made off was once forged in a star. Also the sun is 5billion years old and projected to last another 5billion years (10billion years total) the universe is 13.7billion years old. So the suns lifetime almost equals
@InODependanceSyndrom I appreciate your reply, and you trying to condense such a intricate topic but i was being completely sarcastic. Thanks though for not being rude haha.
The interviewer was a tool. If science was wrong, then where do the inventions come from that enable him to have a fucking job where he can talk to a microphone for a living, that mass-produce his clothes, that synthezises his cheap cologne and hair products, that made it possible to build fucking cameras to capture his ugly mug, etc., etc., etc-fucking-cetera.?
@crocswsocks Obliviously you aren't George because he took the question very well but the interviewer is perfectly correct that believing in science can be related to a belief in religion in a way. If you blindly believe what a scientist(a priest) says and don't do your own research you are no better than a Christian who blindly believes what he is being told.
you cannot compare science and religion!! they set out to do very different things! science may be a system of belief but it is based on testable observations using a variety of tools invented to increase the scope/depth of these observations. it seeks a falsifiable claim, or "theory". religion has never set out to provide an explanation of the universe that is actually testable because it isn't based on observable evidence, therefore ts claims are not falsifiable.
If you want to call science a belief system, so be it. But remember this : Science has proof without certainty, religion has certainty without proof. Don't EVER think they're on equal grounds.
One says "After several analysis, experiments and verifications, we can conclude that X phenomenon happens because of evidences Y and result Z", while the other one simply says "X happens because it's written in the book. End of story."
@TheYipedo Science tries to figure things out by using math, and guessing. The problem with religion, specially christianity is that they go by only faith and even guessing what the bible says. Instead of sitting down and figuring it out. How many times the books been translated. What language was it originally written in? Is it translated correctly? Did they added or taken off? How come religion does this and bible says that? Science and religion need to get together and figure it out.
@abramhb shut the fuck up, science and religion never will come together one is superstitious made up bullshit and the other is relying on facts and tries to explain with logic doN#t you ever tell anyone that science and religion should go hand in hand, people died to get the church and politics seperated and now you dimwit come back and say that reason and zealot believe should join, seriously just be silent and spare us of your mental diarrhea
@MutsuKazuma LOL I had feeling a close minded individual like your self was gonna respond, but if you ever read the bible and question the logic in it by researching and using science you will find out that it makes more sense than you think. Religion today twist words and say their bull and makes it difficult for everybody else to take the bible seriously because even religion don't believe what they bible says specially the catholic church. They are just in it for the money and power.
Belief system? Science was created to eliminate the need for belief, i.e. a notion that does not stem from evidence and is not founded in logic. Interviewers should not colour their interviews with their own prejudices.
(facepalm) This idiot interviewer is trying to drag science down to the level of religion by calling it a belief system, when in fact it is a *method* of modeling nature. I was surprised that Carlin couldn't come up with radiometric dating as the way we know the age of the earth, all of the varieties of which point to the same 4.6 billion years. We even have a good estimate of the age of the universe (13.7 billion years), and that to me is a spectacular accomplishment!
It's because Science, to people that can't grasp it in its fullness (very few can), requires you to trust that Scientist do provide conclusions based on observations, as opposed to musings of their own.
To someone that tells me "you do need to believe in science...", I'd answer "No, I don't have to believe. But I do need to trust that the guy in the lab coat is telling me the truth as best as he can because I can't figure all of it myself."
@hznfrst you are right, that interviewer is a dumbass, science is not at all a belief system because science actually proves things following an specific method
Does the observer affect the conclusion of the specific method? if so..it's also an beliefsystem...and what is the deep meaning of proving someting scientificaly? we need to find the smallest particle because of...they realy dont know :) it's an kind of collectivism and religion in a sense...do you see? im not trying to convince you..but it's an intresting thought^^
@whey80 Hehe, well, science is not a belief system cause you can feel and observe the things it proves, i.e. the GPS is based on Einstein's work (as i watched on History Channel lol) and another exaple is of course gravity. Gravity does not exist just because we believe in it. But yeah, "Man is the measure of all things", right?
@hznfrst Don't be surprised. Carlin was after all a layman, not specially educated in these branches and likely did not go to deeply into them, but rather going into other variations of science that interested him more, likely languages and social sciences.
And technically from an epistemological standpoint Science(Empiricism) axiomatically believes that the universe is understandable and can be understood from our senses.
@Solensherre The assumption that the universe is knowable is one the few that is necessary to do science. So far it has paid off rather handsomely, I'd say, unlike the religious assumption that magic is real.
@hznfrst I'm not saying it's a bad assumption, just that it is an assumption which we cannot prove seeing as empirical proof cannot prove it's own value and philosophical proofs have not come to any definite points(yet).
And even though it is worhtless to argue about "absolute" truth (where our scientific assumption is as good as the religious one) we can at least say our assumption allows us to better our lives and to understand what is at the very least an illusion.
@Solensherre We're not disagreeing at all, as there are always axioms (i.e. strictly unprovable assumptions) at the bottom of every endeavor, scientific or otherwise, even in mathematics and logic. The assumptions which are fruitful are the ones which all but the most naive skeptic must conclude are the closest approach to the truth that we can get. This is the ultimate humility of science, the polar opposite of the absolutism of religion - yet believers still call scientists arrogant!
@numerrita That is the same as to say that Nietzsche was a retard. On the level of the question being asked, science is a belief just like religion. But if we question more concrete things such as the question whether gravity exists, that is a scientific fact. It's a valid observation about science, because it is also possible believe in it aside from the fact that its based on evidence.
how can science be a lie ? they have proof for everything they conclude ... im sure if u google 'how did they find out how old earth is ...?' u will find an answer.. >_< probably something 2 do with half life im guessing ...
how can science be a lie ? they have proof for everything they conclude ... im sure if u google 'how did they find out how old earth is ...?' u will find an answer.. >_<
The great thing about science is that it CAN be FALSIFIED with scientific FACTS. In other words, science can disprove science. That's how science resolves disputes. Some religions on the other hand, can preach some of the most absurd things & people will believe it, but if someone stands up against religion you got a big fight on your hands.
The difference between science and religion is that scientists are always ready to be proven wrong. It's built in to the scientific method: we must revise our beliefs based on what we learn and experience. This is rarely true of religion, although Buddhism is a notable exception.
It has always been my understanding that one of the fundamental differences between science and religion is that science would continue to exist regardless of whether people believed in it or not.
Science is based soley on facts, and when the facts doesnt fit the reality we once believed to be real we are forced to change our views on reality...
A beliefe system says that reality is in a certain way and you have to take it on faith not fact that that idea is the correct one (no matter what the facts say).
@tigerw222@deathtotheism@mattfryy@dylanw26@Anima14 Certainty doesn't exist. A fact is something the probability of whose existence is estimated to be extremely high, and it's never 100%. This does not deteriorate science at all. The probability that the earth is ~4.55 billion years old is more than 95% whereas, exempli gratia, the probability that the Bible is true is less than 1%. Religion is the antithesis of science, for religion is to faith as science is to scepticism.
@xXvolhvXx i jsut didnt like that carlin accepted the interviews premis that science is just another beliefe system... becuase like you said. religion requires faith, science is what it is whether u like it or not and u never have to take anyones word for it, you never have to take science on faith. science does not claim to know what it cant understand. (and ye i get that even if its been "scientificly proven" it doesnt have to be accurate its just very probable.) anyway, well put sir
@tigerw222 While science is to skepticism as religion is to faith, it moreover happens to be so that science, unlike religion, has no dogma, no ego. Hypotheses can be either proved or disproved. Approximation is risky because you never know, but often it's quite sufficient. We managed to send people to the Moon and bring them back while the calculations that we used for it were not based on certainty but on approximation. Absolute certainty does not exist, but we're doing just fine without it.
@xXvolhvXx Fantastic statement. Very few findings have been found to be infallible, the scientific world revolves around disproving. Nothing is concrete.
@supergenius2450cr That's true, but the latest and most advanced estimates indicate that the number of solar years that have passed since the Big Bang is ~13.64-86 billion. It was almost offensive to hear somebody say that “the Earth is like 21 billion years old”.
It is belief because there are many things that scientist doesn't agree, and if when they agree that doesn't mean they are right. But in schools and in the media they present things the most probable things as facts so we could function. But sometimes they just advertise some very discutable things as very probable, because it is in someone's interest, but that's another story. After all why are you all arguing about when Carlin agreed...
nepostojeneutralni 2 weeks ago
science is not a religion, it does not involve faith. and faith is believing in an idea without any explanation.
HIDEYOKIDS101 2 weeks ago
interviewer is retard
DarkestOne7 1 month ago 6
The interviewer is total moron!What an idiot!!"Science is belief"?
kabasak 1 month ago 2
@kabasak It IS. Though not nearly as bad as something like Christianity.
CYaN1c1oWN 1 month ago
@CYaN1c1oWN No offence but you should go back to high school and finally graduate.No wait.I meant first grade.Graduate from first grade and maybe then you will be qualified to decently discuss about science.
kabasak 1 month ago
@kabasak And is that you in your channel picture? Aren't we a bit old to be talking like a child of this generation?
CYaN1c1oWN 1 month ago
@CYaN1c1oWN It's reasonable to expect a retaliation reply since my previous comment is a little hard on you,but I won't answer.I don't have conversations with people who ignore the definition of core concepts like science.
kabasak 1 month ago
@kabasak That's fine with me. I'd much rather debate my view points with those who oppose to find common ground/new ideas, ya know, like an adult. ;)
CYaN1c1oWN 1 month ago
Comment removed
eskuAdradit0 1 month ago
I think he was being polite about the word "belief" to put it nicely. I have wondered about the theory of a recirculating torus along with Gauss's Law which could maybe explain the red and blue shift. Maybe the acceleration of space is an illusion or just part of one enormous cycle. What ever it is, yep, take the facts as they come!
jonny7748 1 month ago
21 billion years old?
NormacHC 1 month ago
How come every interviewer of George Carlin I can find on utube is a total dumbnut?
Nietsro 1 month ago
Religion is a vigiland refusal to question transparent "answers" that a bunch of lunatics pulled out of their asses millenia ago, while sience is a vigilant search for solid answers and proof to support them.
snakeinthereeds 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
snakeinthereeds 1 month ago
Here we go again. NO, it can never be the same "beleif" in science as in religion. Science seeks answers to questions by gathering information that could (or is) be evidence of facts. Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Geology, Palaentology, Astronomy, Technology... Art, Music, Philosophy, Literature; ALL asking questions and searches. RELIGION, on the other hand, just have the answers (written down thousand of years ago). Carlin makes a gentlemans response to an ignorant interviewer.
ExtrackterYT 1 month ago
The interviewer seems upset and by asking "How do they know the earth is 21 billion years old?" he tries to challenge George Carlin, but fails because he is too stupid to wrap his mind around complicated things.
CounterNerd 1 month ago
"Well I don't believe that science is going to put me in a nice place after I die..." Nice, I like that statement.
Storyboard912 1 month ago
@Storyboard912 nothing will literally put you in a nice place after you die. You are dead then. How nice for religious people that there are no witnesses from heaven that can tell us about it or document it? Cause there is no dying and coming back. How are Facts proven with science and tests a bad thing- or something to call lies when all the proof is available for anyone to see?
theremixphilly 1 month ago
SCIENCE IS NOT A BELIEF- IT IS PROVEN or UNPROVEN FACTS. How does that sound like a belief system?
theremixphilly 1 month ago 25
@theremixphilly if you could tell me what an unproven fact is, i'd be very thankful mr scientist. could it be something you believe, but couldn't proof yet? like the THEORY of evolution? where is your missing link? ooops - did i say "believe"? sorry for prooving you wrong
obsidianmeteorite 1 month ago
@obsidianmeteorite unproven fact -- I meant a fact that is in the process of being proven. I believe the word YOU were looking for is proven - not proof . LOL! You also are looking for the word proving--- not prooving. and no you did NOT prove me wrong because- science unlike religion has proof (theories that were tried and found true) against things religion said were the opposite of the facts science has proven(too many to list). Religion can't PROVE anything though.
theremixphilly 1 month ago
@theremixphilly "a fact that's in the process of being proven".... like god created the world in seven days? it's also a "fact" that is in the process of being proven. sorry, english is not my native language, next time we can discuss in mine. i hope you are fit in german. i don't say that science is wrong. but it's not scientific to say for example "there is no life after death". we don't know that, it's a matter of belief. you also belief. whatever it is. like god doesn't exist
obsidianmeteorite 1 month ago
@obsidianmeteorite try to prove that there is no god. ask a scientist what love is. science is a nice tool, but some people use it like a religion. like "my god is better than yours!". some people use science as their god. no prob, they can do whatever they want. but don't tell me it has nothing to do with belief. 1000 years ago the earth was a disc, now it's a ball, in 20 years the universe might be a 234-dimensional donut. science like that is belief, it's not eternal at all
obsidianmeteorite 1 month ago
@obsidianmeteorite scientists can tell you what love is just as easily as looking it up in a dictionary. in 20 years the world will not be deemed by scientists that it is a 1234 d Doughnut. Cause it has been proven for years and decades through space travel. Once it has been proven - there is no changing if the earth is round. When things are proven - tried and proven there is not changing that. Litmus strips are not believing things are acids or bases.Science is not a belief.
theremixphilly 1 month ago
@obsidianmeteorite you decided to chime in on an english thread- and there is a red line (spell check) under words not spelled right. so- no. yes- your first sentence is a belief- it is when it is tested and proven true that it is fact. I don't see how facts that have been proven through science are beliefs. They are not. Thing is - proving something DOES exist is important. Believer must prove it. Prove existence of it - there is too much evidence & out weighs the belief.
theremixphilly 1 month ago
@theremixphilly but it is a belief system nonetheless. believe i am a scientist ;-)
kvazidodo 1 month ago
@kvazidodo only up until it is proven fact. after proof it no longer is a belief. it is what logical people call fact.
theremixphilly 1 month ago
@theremixphilly Whats with the caps, like that makes your statement more correct... Science is mainly theories actually. The theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, or even theory of gravity. They are humans way of systemising the world. And humans can't actually do that flawlessly. Our grasp on reality is not so accurate as to say that these theories are 100% correct. They are theories that make most sense to most people.
One has to believe the scientists got it right...
rist98 1 month ago
@theremixphilly Nothing is provable (actually there are no absolutes, the only thing that is provable undoubtedly is that "something is happening" ).
We cant even prove that 1 + 1 = 2
Any scientist will tell you that.
Do a critical thinking course. Just because A was A the last 100 times, does not prove A will be A the next time.
Science IS a belief system, the best one we have, but still is.
A "fact" is only what we all agree to be true. Seen The Matrix? It based on actual philosophy.
.
EvolvingTruthSeeker 1 month ago
@EvolvingTruthSeeker try taking the hippiness out of that statement please. cause 1=1 does equal 2. A may turn into B the next time- but it is documented and tested. Religion just trust some guy that said GOD told him. no tests or documentation of those tests. Science stops being theory and philosophy once it is proven fact. There are proven facts though it's late now - I"m tired and going to sleep for now..
theremixphilly 1 month ago
Comment removed
EvolvingTruthSeeker 1 month ago
@theremixphilly Other than "something is happening". Prove something to me? anything? show me proof. There is absolutely no way of proofing that this is not all an illusion, no way! Therefore, nothing is provable. (Oh, and btw. there is nothing "hippie" about waht Im saying. Its philosophy.
EvolvingTruthSeeker 1 month ago
@EvolvingTruthSeeker I'm not one to youtube argue and shit, so don't even expect further replies from me. First of all, fuck your philosophy. 1+1=2 because that is how math started out. Math is always SURE. No matter what, because it's not natural, it's all hypothetical. It's like a parallel universe with an UNBENDABLE set of rules (with some exceptions of course, when the actual rules say it is bendable. One more example? 'Light is shiny'. That is true because I can see you because of it. End.
MrPunchYoNuts 1 month ago
@theremixphilly There are no such things as facts.
nepostojeneutralni 1 month ago
@nepostojeneutralni There is. Facts are things which are proven by what we know.
killer6468 1 month ago
@killer6468
There is nothing that can be proven right, you can only prove or not prove it wrong. Albert Einstein said that there thousand of evidence couldn't prove he is right, but one is enough to prove he is wrong. There are many things in our science's history that were considered as facts and than proven wrong. And there will be.
nepostojeneutralni 1 month ago
@killer6468 I can go in deeper debate in that what you sad "proven by what we know" - what we know has to be a fact to be valid in science, and again what proves that fact? What we know? :) Do you get it now where I'm aiming at?
nepostojeneutralni 1 month ago
@theremixphilly Scientist are what we call the modern day high priest, in the old days the pagan priest would say sacrifice you virgin daughters to my sun god or the sun will be blotted out, so they did. today if a scientist says the sky is falling and we need to abandon carbon based fuels or the world will end we submit. The same game, The same con artist and they've been playing this game for 10,000 years.
mechanicalbu11 1 month ago
@mechanicalbu11 difference is- science has proof to back it up. the whole sacrifice a virgin thing is totally proven to be bull shit cause only certain groups of people would do that and what about the other groups that didn't do that- there were no negative effects on them because they DIDN"T do it. Science = facts = Religion negates facts so they can keep the weak and easily persuaded going on with their faith with nothing backing it up. Show proof.
theremixphilly 1 month ago
@theremixphilly Scientist, our modern high priests wish us to sacrifice our use of carbon fuels when they have not proven that we should, they lied about atmospheric global warming to force us by legislation to give up our carbon fuels. when they "the elite" will not do the same. in my opinion scientist manufacture proof in order to mold the agenda. and if Galileo was still alive today he still would be placed under house arrest for daring to say AGW was fake.Science = Religion
mechanicalbu11 1 month ago
@mechanicalbu11 - Global warming is a lie? Now that is just stupid. There is a bunch of proof that global warming is real. We are seeing the effects of it now. That is the reason there is so much talk about it. You don't Make up facts- that's the great thing about facts- ANYONE can test a fact and get the same result- because it is fact. Religion--- the complete opposite.
theremixphilly 1 month ago
@theremixphilly don't be stupid, there are those that propose AWG as real also the same have something to gain by denying people the resources they need to survive. you say proof did the sea levels rise? according to sailors there has been no net increase in sea levels, but guys like Gore say there has. you are seeing normal environmental variations and being told we are the cause. hogwash!
mechanicalbu11 1 month ago
@mechanicalbu11 Normal Variations? Typhoons- earthquakes floods - tsunamis - Major forest tires and widespread fires of huge scales. What is normal about that? and this is not over a long period of time- it is the last few years. This is like end of the world prophesy kind of crap. co no proof? ok whatever - I'm bored with arguing with people that can't prove their point with facts supporting it. I"m out. Enjoy loosing to these other logical people,
theremixphilly 1 month ago
@theremixphilly Mathematics is the closest you can get to proven and disproven facts not natural science! So, science is a "belief-system" 0_0 !!!
maxheedrum100 1 month ago
@maxheedrum100 Thank you!
CYaN1c1oWN 1 month ago
@theremixphilly You just proved that it is a belief system. These "facts" you speak of are based on our own skew or perspective of understanding. They are not absolute... They only apply to us and our attempt at understanding. Science is very useful, but it is not a meta-theory. It is, though, one of our most important enterprises. It's more like an evolving Elementary school child at this point, not some genius-like college prodigy.
CYaN1c1oWN 1 month ago
Comment removed
electricwagster 1 month ago
This interviewer is a moron. Yes science is a belief system, but the only belief scientists hold without proof is that every cause has an effect and vice versa. If anybody can come up with a more profoundly beautiful and simple belief, then I'm all ears. No belief in a god can equal that.
BeanShip 1 month ago 4
this interviewer is a complete retard
TurkiyeCumhurbaskani 2 months ago
Cience IS NOT a believe system. What a freaking ASSHOLE.
HenryQuienne 2 months ago
What is up with this bollocks? Science is not the same as religion! Even if you blindly listen to what a scientist says, that's due to an assumption that A) The man is more competent than you in this area (due to his extensive education) and B) he's done the fucking research! There IS no research to be done when it comes to religion. Science is based on observation and evidence! Religion is more or less based on ignoring all observation and evidence to preserve faith! Hardly similar.
TheNewRinguPingu 2 months ago 6
I don't like this interviewer
cheezombie 2 months ago 4
The real god doesn't need you to believe anything.
TheScaryClownSays 2 months ago 2
What is wrong with the interviewer? What a fucking prick, he's sitting next to one of the greatest detractor of religion and at least he should know his opinion (because everybody knows George Carlin's opinion about this, c'mon) if he's fucking interviewing him. And 21 billion years, WTF was that?
George was one of the greatest. I like to imagine him like, 80 years in the future, as another Nietzsche, something like that. What a great thinker and philosopher he was, behind all his comedy
tomastocornal 3 months ago 2
George had the look of "Are you fucking serious??" after the big dumb question. It turned into an indirect religious debate and denial of all scientific discovery, like the scientific method used to create the microphones and clothing on his body, and it was very bizarre.
TonyBtheEG 3 months ago
@lease2coach if you are replying to reheelak29... then, he meant the interviewer... not Carlin.. :/
DrKillaser 3 months ago
George knows that the meaning of life is re-cycling, as confirmed by this important recent message.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by bronze-age scribes.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.
See ' God says sorry. '
lacontrabasse 3 months ago
damn...wasted a good brain to 1 bad question
paulwritesfights 3 months ago
I think George lost the interviewer and the audience around about the time of him saying, "I'm reading right now about..."
piratebri 4 months ago
the universe is expanding. Far away galixies are accelerating in speed away from us and as of now phycists are sure why. There's theories about dark matter but nothing concrete yet.
interstategar 4 months ago
The interviewer is fucking oblivious.
HomingMissiles 4 months ago
"How do they know the earth is 21 billion years old?" ... are you kidding me? did this guy pass fucking highschool?
raheelak29 4 months ago 59
@raheelak29 I'm sure he did, every time he walked by it.
BigballzDeep 2 months ago in playlist George Carlin
This has been flagged as spam show
@raheelak29 Mathematics is the closest you can get to proven and disproven facts not natural science! So, science is a "belief-system" 0_0 !!!
maxheedrum100 1 month ago
Interviewer is an idiot
"The good thing about science is that its true whether you believe it or not" Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Spaceman2451 4 months ago 3
Interviewer- go read a book.."a belief system" facepalm
MissPraecipua 4 months ago
interviewer shot himself in the foot. What an idiot.
TheJovanist 5 months ago in playlist George Carlin
I do believe that there is such a thing as a "cult of science" or a "religion of science". But that's got nothing to do with science itself, it's about stupid people who believe anything if you tell them a scientist said it.
Tuuliska 5 months ago
@Tuuliska Oh yeah, or those who believe that science will solve all world's problems and they don't have to do shit.
Tuuliska 5 months ago
i think its pretty arrogant and selfish us to think there is an afterlife :/
rollipolioli 6 months ago
@rollipolioli For those who do, that is :P. I personally don't think there is one, and on top of that: I hope I'm right! Not because I fear hell, no. Even if I got into heaven, an eternity of life is... long. And boring. I do NOT want to live absolutely FOREVER, no sir!
D3m190d 5 months ago
lawl @ fail interviewer 1:07 ..he just couldnt let it slide..sience is NO fuckin believe! science proves itself over and over again in our daily lives..there are thousands of indipendent researches that all point to the same facts.
religion is entirely based on faith...even less...just one book, that requires your faith at pre-hand.and its written by highly questionalble men in a time where nothing was explored.
v00d00child187 6 months ago
Science tells us that for all matter there must exist its opposite - antimatter. The same goes for energy. The universe reaches a balance in the same way that 1 + -1 = 0 so why do you need a God to create nothing
NoMeansYess 6 months ago
Science is not a belief. You don't believe that 2+2 =4. 2+2 is fucking 4 no matter what you believe
TheEd0206 6 months ago
@TheEd0206 totally agree!
lore2222222 6 months ago
the interviewer is a friggin tool
djmana 6 months ago
the interviewer is a fucking idiot... hes implying that science is made up just like religion.... jackass
ssa09003 6 months ago in playlist George Carlin @ Paley Center interview
Actually the inteviewer is wrong in the following way. Experiencing the awe of and Einstein or a Spinoza at the majesty of the universe as it is (that is as the evidence reveals it) isn't the same as accepting and holding inviolate ideas about that universe. One of the things that characterizes the reality based community is its attachment to reason and evidence. Not revealed "truth." The interview is offering a false equivalence.
Godsmasher22 7 months ago
what a stupid bastard.
volound 7 months ago
The interviewer apparently doesn't know wtf science is.
MikeRoePhonicsMusic 7 months ago 3
@MikeRoePhonicsMusic
It rhymes with ambiance, is all I know...
unabomberman 7 months ago in playlist Comedy -- George Carlin
But it should be noted, that despite the scientific method itself being a method of infallibility, it is implemented by humans, which are themselves very far from infallible.
bougatses 7 months ago
@bougatses
And yet we build kickass machines that prove the theory right every friggin time. Even if we shifted methods, the subtantive elements of the information that we uncover are still correct.
unabomberman 7 months ago in playlist Comedy -- George Carlin
Science is not a "belief system". It is based upon the scientific method and trying one's hardest to see if a proposed theory stands up to relentless ways of negating it. Not that any theory is "bulletproof", but when you keep on getting the same answer regardless of what you throw at it, well there's something going on there,
bougatses 7 months ago 2
belief in science? epic fail
rebecky 7 months ago
Just noticed Carlin's right ear has a strange mutation...comments?
kworld01 7 months ago
@kworld01 he's got Cauliflower ear.lol.
Thebizzle21 7 months ago
of so many hundred billion other galaxys with their own cosmic horizon. What annoys me is that some factual litteral, boring assholes define the cosmic horizon as the whole universe, while its ridiculously obvious that it isnt.
InODependanceSyndrom 7 months ago
the age of the known universe. thats why we can safely assume the universe is so many quadrillion times bigger and older then we see as it is, cause it would be kinda awkward if the lifetime of stars would match the age of the universe.
13.7billion lightyears is our cosmic horizon. Its horizon is shaped by the speedlimit of light. Just like a ships horizon on the ocea is determined by the earths circumference.
Theres probably undiscovered space, equall to several sextillion other clusters
InODependanceSyndrom 7 months ago
Science is a belief system? What an idiot. Science is based on the scientific method which means based on measurable, repeatable experiments; and demonstrating or proving hypothesis. Something religion does not have .All religions are Bullshit, no exception. All religion has is some "book" which is a compilation of contradicting stories about farmers and such, with some arbitrary rules to live by.
einbischen 7 months ago
He is saying you have to have faith in the science books, you gotta have faith that it's not all bullshit like the bible.
roxaSora11 7 months ago
@roxaSora11 But you don't get faith, you get evidence to look at.
XiDarkEntropyiX 7 months ago
trying to outsmart science facts cause u can prove it but believing in superman as a God that makes more sense.i mean God has feelings (love,hate,anger,ect.) like man but powerful,so the first thing comes in mind is superman.in conclusion God is a science fiction and this guy confused the two cause he was busy sucking on someones dick and didnt pay attention in class and missed an important thing.
satanscunt666 7 months ago
the earth is 4.5 billion years old, its not based on "belief" its based on research and actual conclusive data, somebody slap that guy
aezeon 7 months ago
Science is not a belief system. We keep on disproving theories or give support to them how can it be a belief system?
Fucking idiot
Quentinsama 7 months ago
honestly i cannot begin to explain how annoyed it made me to listen to this dickhead interviewer say "Science is a belief system". He should look at the definition of science and look at what science stands for before saying that. Also "21 billion years old" LMAO enough proof to tell you this guy has NO IDEA what he's talking about.
Jaytothecore 7 months ago
belief in science lmao...that dude needs to get out the interviewing job and become a comedian...
buakawkaoklai 7 months ago
belief in science??? you believe in the easter bunny. You either accept science or not.
griesrt 7 months ago
Wow. If I were George, the only thing keeping me from walking out after 1:50 would be the knowledge that I'd be letting my fans down.
crocswsocks 7 months ago 54
You pick up dirt and it's 21 billion years old, you can't explain that.
Cygnusx1991 7 months ago
@Cygnusx1991
You can if you involve the sun (stars) and its hydrogen fuel consumption calculated with the mass and the accretion matter around the solar system + newton + einstein is calculaiton that leads us to knowing the earth is 4.5billion years old.
The rocks (matter) earth is made off was once forged in a star. Also the sun is 5billion years old and projected to last another 5billion years (10billion years total) the universe is 13.7billion years old. So the suns lifetime almost equals
InODependanceSyndrom 7 months ago
@InODependanceSyndrom I appreciate your reply, and you trying to condense such a intricate topic but i was being completely sarcastic. Thanks though for not being rude haha.
Cygnusx1991 6 months ago
@crocswsocks
The interviewer was a tool. If science was wrong, then where do the inventions come from that enable him to have a fucking job where he can talk to a microphone for a living, that mass-produce his clothes, that synthezises his cheap cologne and hair products, that made it possible to build fucking cameras to capture his ugly mug, etc., etc., etc-fucking-cetera.?
unabomberman 7 months ago in playlist Comedy -- George Carlin
@crocswsocks If you were George you would be a god to.
andreieforie 6 months ago
@crocswsocks Obliviously you aren't George because he took the question very well but the interviewer is perfectly correct that believing in science can be related to a belief in religion in a way. If you blindly believe what a scientist(a priest) says and don't do your own research you are no better than a Christian who blindly believes what he is being told.
KvalnirFox 2 months ago
YL3AN 3MRIII <3
nouralharirii 7 months ago
you cannot compare science and religion!! they set out to do very different things! science may be a system of belief but it is based on testable observations using a variety of tools invented to increase the scope/depth of these observations. it seeks a falsifiable claim, or "theory". religion has never set out to provide an explanation of the universe that is actually testable because it isn't based on observable evidence, therefore ts claims are not falsifiable.
mexicanstorm 7 months ago
The Interviewer clearly believes in religion. Poor guy.
TheChiefsDude 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
THEORY of cyclic universes. 21 billion years old. Take speed of light and extrapolate backwards... Yes, science is a belief system.
wildbill562 7 months ago
@TheYipedo And that is why the choice in "belief" is very, very fucking obvious. :)
Hater9001 7 months ago
lol i think korea will fuck us over in 2015 cuz of this guy
KashgroundTM 8 months ago
If you want to call science a belief system, so be it. But remember this : Science has proof without certainty, religion has certainty without proof. Don't EVER think they're on equal grounds.
One says "After several analysis, experiments and verifications, we can conclude that X phenomenon happens because of evidences Y and result Z", while the other one simply says "X happens because it's written in the book. End of story."
TheYipedo 8 months ago 3
@TheYipedo Science tries to figure things out by using math, and guessing. The problem with religion, specially christianity is that they go by only faith and even guessing what the bible says. Instead of sitting down and figuring it out. How many times the books been translated. What language was it originally written in? Is it translated correctly? Did they added or taken off? How come religion does this and bible says that? Science and religion need to get together and figure it out.
abramhb 7 months ago
@abramhb shut the fuck up, science and religion never will come together one is superstitious made up bullshit and the other is relying on facts and tries to explain with logic doN#t you ever tell anyone that science and religion should go hand in hand, people died to get the church and politics seperated and now you dimwit come back and say that reason and zealot believe should join, seriously just be silent and spare us of your mental diarrhea
MutsuKazuma 7 months ago
@MutsuKazuma LOL I had feeling a close minded individual like your self was gonna respond, but if you ever read the bible and question the logic in it by researching and using science you will find out that it makes more sense than you think. Religion today twist words and say their bull and makes it difficult for everybody else to take the bible seriously because even religion don't believe what they bible says specially the catholic church. They are just in it for the money and power.
abramhb 7 months ago
The fuck is wrong with this interviewer? Jesus.. HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE, DID YOU GO TO THOSE CLASSES?
blah7676 8 months ago
Belief system? Science was created to eliminate the need for belief, i.e. a notion that does not stem from evidence and is not founded in logic. Interviewers should not colour their interviews with their own prejudices.
MoebiusPan 8 months ago
@MoebiusPan they can, if they think like carlin, not if they are retarded zealots
MutsuKazuma 7 months ago
The interviewer disliked this 6 times. What a tool.
Strangepete 8 months ago
Comment removed
YourStudyBuddy 8 months ago
(facepalm) This idiot interviewer is trying to drag science down to the level of religion by calling it a belief system, when in fact it is a *method* of modeling nature. I was surprised that Carlin couldn't come up with radiometric dating as the way we know the age of the earth, all of the varieties of which point to the same 4.6 billion years. We even have a good estimate of the age of the universe (13.7 billion years), and that to me is a spectacular accomplishment!
hznfrst 8 months ago 44
@hznfrst .... Thats.... Alot of years.. :)
WannaExpressYourSelf 7 months ago
@hznfrst
It's because Science, to people that can't grasp it in its fullness (very few can), requires you to trust that Scientist do provide conclusions based on observations, as opposed to musings of their own.
To someone that tells me "you do need to believe in science...", I'd answer "No, I don't have to believe. But I do need to trust that the guy in the lab coat is telling me the truth as best as he can because I can't figure all of it myself."
I wonder if Hitchens and Carlin hanged out.
LtColVenom 7 months ago
@hznfrst you are right, that interviewer is a dumbass, science is not at all a belief system because science actually proves things following an specific method
maxprezas92 6 months ago
@maxprezas92
Does the observer affect the conclusion of the specific method? if so..it's also an beliefsystem...and what is the deep meaning of proving someting scientificaly? we need to find the smallest particle because of...they realy dont know :) it's an kind of collectivism and religion in a sense...do you see? im not trying to convince you..but it's an intresting thought^^
whey80 6 months ago
@whey80 Hehe, well, science is not a belief system cause you can feel and observe the things it proves, i.e. the GPS is based on Einstein's work (as i watched on History Channel lol) and another exaple is of course gravity. Gravity does not exist just because we believe in it. But yeah, "Man is the measure of all things", right?
maxprezas92 6 months ago
@hznfrst
Yeah, but lets not be too hard on him. He was a child of the cold war not the internet.
fatcat2939 6 months ago
@hznfrst Don't be surprised. Carlin was after all a layman, not specially educated in these branches and likely did not go to deeply into them, but rather going into other variations of science that interested him more, likely languages and social sciences.
And technically from an epistemological standpoint Science(Empiricism) axiomatically believes that the universe is understandable and can be understood from our senses.
Solensherre 6 months ago
@Solensherre The assumption that the universe is knowable is one the few that is necessary to do science. So far it has paid off rather handsomely, I'd say, unlike the religious assumption that magic is real.
hznfrst 6 months ago
@hznfrst I'm not saying it's a bad assumption, just that it is an assumption which we cannot prove seeing as empirical proof cannot prove it's own value and philosophical proofs have not come to any definite points(yet).
And even though it is worhtless to argue about "absolute" truth (where our scientific assumption is as good as the religious one) we can at least say our assumption allows us to better our lives and to understand what is at the very least an illusion.
Solensherre 6 months ago
@Solensherre We're not disagreeing at all, as there are always axioms (i.e. strictly unprovable assumptions) at the bottom of every endeavor, scientific or otherwise, even in mathematics and logic. The assumptions which are fruitful are the ones which all but the most naive skeptic must conclude are the closest approach to the truth that we can get. This is the ultimate humility of science, the polar opposite of the absolutism of religion - yet believers still call scientists arrogant!
hznfrst 6 months ago
the interviewer is a moron
LLlap 8 months ago 2
Sience is not a beleif system. It is knowing, or not knowing.
NorwegianPotato 8 months ago
@NorwegianPotato David Hume and feyerabend want to have a word with you.
RDV333 8 months ago
You can call science a belief. You can call chairs a belief... I believe chairs do exist, so I guess that's my belief.
sinbysin666 8 months ago
the belief in science? LOL
idreamtofflight 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science is not a belief system. Science is based on observation where we can then make conclusions. Dumb ass interviewer.
DRisLegend200919 8 months ago
Who is this interviewer? Some cretin? I mean creationist, sorry.
rycka1983 8 months ago
The interviewer is such a fucking cunt.
superALable 8 months ago
I think carlin agreed with the interviewer just to be nice, because only a retard would say that science is a belief.
numerrita 8 months ago 4
@numerrita That is the same as to say that Nietzsche was a retard. On the level of the question being asked, science is a belief just like religion. But if we question more concrete things such as the question whether gravity exists, that is a scientific fact. It's a valid observation about science, because it is also possible believe in it aside from the fact that its based on evidence.
GregSidelnikov 8 months ago
how can science be a lie ? they have proof for everything they conclude ... im sure if u google 'how did they find out how old earth is ...?' u will find an answer.. >_< probably something 2 do with half life im guessing ...
zombiecarrot 8 months ago 2
how can science be a lie ? they have proof for everything they conclude ... im sure if u google 'how did they find out how old earth is ...?' u will find an answer.. >_<
zombiecarrot 8 months ago
What is the answer to life?
Life isn't a question moron... What is the answer to pizza, now that's deep.
bushiyo2 8 months ago 3
The great thing about science is that it CAN be FALSIFIED with scientific FACTS. In other words, science can disprove science. That's how science resolves disputes. Some religions on the other hand, can preach some of the most absurd things & people will believe it, but if someone stands up against religion you got a big fight on your hands.
krazymindreader 8 months ago 3
george shouldnt have had to say "yea thats where i exercise my beliefs" for SCIENECE. ugh. smh.
Pygmahia5 9 months ago
The interviewer is a cretin of the first water.
qwer4o 9 months ago
Will give my firstborn to bring Carlin back!
Carrion29 9 months ago 3
The difference between science and religion is that scientists are always ready to be proven wrong. It's built in to the scientific method: we must revise our beliefs based on what we learn and experience. This is rarely true of religion, although Buddhism is a notable exception.
Kris10MichelleRoss 9 months ago 3
It has always been my understanding that one of the fundamental differences between science and religion is that science would continue to exist regardless of whether people believed in it or not.
PuppetsNStuff 9 months ago
the interviewer may be retarded, but what Carlin has to say throughout this entire interview is nothing less than brilliance
iyequertu54 9 months ago 2
interviewer is a retard
Lan5in6 9 months ago 2
Science is not a beliefe system.
Science is based soley on facts, and when the facts doesnt fit the reality we once believed to be real we are forced to change our views on reality...
A beliefe system says that reality is in a certain way and you have to take it on faith not fact that that idea is the correct one (no matter what the facts say).
tigerw222 9 months ago
@tigerw222 @deathtotheism @mattfryy @dylanw26 @Anima14 Certainty doesn't exist. A fact is something the probability of whose existence is estimated to be extremely high, and it's never 100%. This does not deteriorate science at all. The probability that the earth is ~4.55 billion years old is more than 95% whereas, exempli gratia, the probability that the Bible is true is less than 1%. Religion is the antithesis of science, for religion is to faith as science is to scepticism.
xXvolhvXx 9 months ago
@xXvolhvXx i jsut didnt like that carlin accepted the interviews premis that science is just another beliefe system... becuase like you said. religion requires faith, science is what it is whether u like it or not and u never have to take anyones word for it, you never have to take science on faith. science does not claim to know what it cant understand. (and ye i get that even if its been "scientificly proven" it doesnt have to be accurate its just very probable.) anyway, well put sir
tigerw222 9 months ago
Comment removed
xXvolhvXx 9 months ago
@tigerw222 While science is to skepticism as religion is to faith, it moreover happens to be so that science, unlike religion, has no dogma, no ego. Hypotheses can be either proved or disproved. Approximation is risky because you never know, but often it's quite sufficient. We managed to send people to the Moon and bring them back while the calculations that we used for it were not based on certainty but on approximation. Absolute certainty does not exist, but we're doing just fine without it.
xXvolhvXx 9 months ago
@xXvolhvXx Fantastic statement. Very few findings have been found to be infallible, the scientific world revolves around disproving. Nothing is concrete.
yusufine 8 months ago
@yusufine The difference between a scientist and a religious fanatic is that a scientist is happy to know something doesn't exist.
GregSidelnikov 8 months ago
@GregSidelnikov - Yes, and no confirmation bias shrouded when experimenting.
yusufine 8 months ago
I bet the interviewer had quite a bit of religious bias to him..
KaedeIzume 9 months ago
There is a difference between science's system of belief and religion's system of faith.
Science adjusts it's beliefs on what is observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
mattfryy 9 months ago
the earth is 4.5 billion not "like 21 billion years old" and btw the universe is something like 15.6 billion years old
supergenius2450cr 9 months ago
@supergenius2450cr That's true, but the latest and most advanced estimates indicate that the number of solar years that have passed since the Big Bang is ~13.64-86 billion. It was almost offensive to hear somebody say that “the Earth is like 21 billion years old”.
xXvolhvXx 9 months ago