ZING!. Finest girl in Miami... theleek.com/2013/03/hottest-angie-varona-self-shots/. HOV TO .. But why are they all penguins?
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search


Views: 45272
Favorited: 78
Submitted: 03/04/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to hollywoodleek E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend


Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#179 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
How OP gets to the front page

1. Posts reddit stuff.
2. Posts ****** link to his/her ****** site
3. Get thumbs up.

Personally I'm tired of this ****** advertising his/her website. Flag his/her stuff as "illegal" all the time and we won't have to deal with it anymore.
User avatar #177 - smittywrbmnjnsn (03/05/2013) [-]
Some little **** that was in my history class, was having a conversation about cars.
He said he like "Porsche, BUT NOT Porsche (Pronounced porsh and porshuh)"

I looked him square in the eyes, and said "Those are the same car"

He said "No you ******* idiot, it's like Honda, and Hyundai, they sound similar, but are 2 different cars".

I should have stabbed that guy right then and there.

User avatar #173 - freejumper (03/05/2013) [-]
I work as a barista at a coffee shop and when people ask me for a grande or vinti or a tall I repeat the name of the coffee shop and every time they try to speak I repeat myself until they realize this is not starbucks.
User avatar #172 - ixcarnifexxi (03/05/2013) [-]
Isn't it "Porsche"?
#165 - killerblue (03/05/2013) [-]
How to upset a soviet: tell them you won't share.

Picture unrelated
User avatar #164 - destaice (03/05/2013) [-]
Excuse me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't "Grande" mean "Large"?
#167 to #164 - ispeakmeme (03/05/2013) [-]
It does but the reason Venti Is bigger is because it means 20 and the drink is 20oz.. Actually the Grande is the large size because there are 2 sizes smaller than that, there's short and tall. I'm a barista at Starbucks so yeah..
User avatar #170 to #167 - ixcarnifexxi (03/05/2013) [-]
Starbucks; the one place where you sound fancy to order a coffee and you don't even know what the **** you just said. All you know is you're paying too much for coffee and a big cup.
User avatar #175 to #170 - ispeakmeme (03/05/2013) [-]
I have actually wondered why some people come in and buy drinks. It's SO overpriced but everyone basically looses their **** over it.
#153 - Chitzu (03/05/2013) [-]
How to irritate philosophy majors:

ask why they want fries with that.
User avatar #171 to #153 - ixcarnifexxi (03/05/2013) [-]
Ask how the fries came to be and what their purpose in life is
User avatar #133 - piptime (03/05/2013) [-]
Does it work on Humans too?
User avatar #149 to #133 - Jackimole (03/05/2013) [-]
#81 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
OP, You suck. You post everything from reddit without even giving credit and try to persuade FJers by putting nsfw links in your description.
YOU are one of the many reasons this site is going down the ******* .
#76 - budbrown (03/05/2013) [-]
**budbrown rolls 12** minus 1
#174 to #76 - wallpapers has deleted their comment [-]
#141 to #76 - bacabac (03/05/2013) [-]
Artificial dubs?
User avatar #86 to #76 - basham (03/05/2013) [-]
you kinda ****** up. But just by sheer luck of you rolling a 12 and minus 1, I'll give it to you.
User avatar #169 to #86 - zorororonoa (03/05/2013) [-]
aren't all dubs sheer luck?
#96 to #86 - budbrown (03/05/2013) [-]
yeah i know i ****** up
User avatar #74 - joaomartins (03/05/2013) [-]
How to irritate FunnyJunk : Le
User avatar #176 to #74 - wallpapers (03/05/2013) [-]
Step 2: 9gag
User avatar #134 to #74 - oottovann (03/05/2013) [-]
Comment irriter Funnyjunk : "The"
#79 to #74 - madoc ONLINE (03/05/2013) [-]
#71 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
Grande me gusta.
*roll picture* pic's not rolling, almost like the old days
#70 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (03/05/2013) [-]
Why couldn't things just go back to how they were a month ago?
#181 to #70 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
flag it as illegal
#68 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
Podaję hasło: Okoń
#67 - lightninghedgehog (03/05/2013) [-]

I've pronounced it "Porsh" my entire life
User avatar #157 to #67 - thespecialone (03/05/2013) [-]
you are not alone
#120 to #67 - foxxywithpaws (03/05/2013) [-]
Here's a funny thing, the proper pronunciation of Porsche is closer to "porsh" than to "porsh-huh". The second syllable is barely pronounced.

You were right all along.
User avatar #73 to #67 - fosforgasxiii (03/05/2013) [-]
Me too.
User avatar #57 - aerius (03/05/2013) [-]
'Grande' isn't even English...
User avatar #109 to #57 - izzygirl (03/05/2013) [-]
Clearly you've never been to Starbucks.
Medium= Grande
Large= Venti
User avatar #107 to #57 - thesovereigngrave (03/05/2013) [-]
The joke is that English majors won't get a good job, and will have to work at places like Starbucks, and at Starbucks they don't have normal cup sizes like small, medium, and large.
User avatar #115 to #107 - aerius (03/05/2013) [-]
Yeah, but why is the English major annoyed? Surely he should be happy that the customer is using English instead of Starbucks terminology?
User avatar #91 to #57 - bitchplzzz (03/05/2013) [-]
Ur attempt @ being smart failed lol
User avatar #94 to #91 - aerius (03/05/2013) [-]
'Grand' is English, 'Grande' is the version from countries that speak romance languages. GTFO, amerifat.
User avatar #104 to #94 - gmarrox (03/05/2013) [-]
Are you serious right now? Like, are you not getting the joke here, or what?
User avatar #113 to #104 - aerius (03/05/2013) [-]
I 'get' it, but it's inherently flawed. The strip is titled: 'how to irritate...' Yet in the strip itself the one being irritated is the starbucks employee, who shouldn't be irritated because he's apparently an English Major, therefore should theoretically be glad that the customer is using English. So I'm just pointing out that the last panel has a mistake.
#139 to #113 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
It's a joke about english majors having to work in the service industry. Are you ******* autistic?
User avatar #150 to #139 - aerius (03/05/2013) [-]
No, anon. I actually read the comic strip. Sure, the English Major would be annoyed about working at starbucks, but in the actual dialogue, the reason he's angry is because the customer said 'Medium' instead of 'Grande'. However, because he's an English Major, this shouldn't be annoying him because the customer is using proper English instead of rubbing in the fact that he works at starbucks by using their stupid Italian names.
#154 to #150 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
So you do have autism. Carry on then.
User avatar #122 to #113 - gmarrox (03/05/2013) [-]
The joke is that English majors can't get a career or valuable job so they end up working as cashiers.
User avatar #124 to #122 - aerius (03/05/2013) [-]
and yet, the dialogue is analogous to that (totally **** and overdone) joke... The strip is garbage.
User avatar #140 to #124 - jayblue (03/05/2013) [-]
Are you an English major?
User avatar #145 to #140 - aerius (03/05/2013) [-]
No, I did an English A-level but I wouldn't take that **** in university... Because my dad teaches it in a university, and even he says it's a total ******* waste of time xD
User avatar #152 to #145 - jayblue (03/05/2013) [-]
Not that I plan on pursuing a career where I would have to major in anything that is mandatory high school, but why would your father do that if he finds it a total waste of time?
User avatar #187 to #152 - aerius (03/06/2013) [-]
because he teaches it, which is about the only thing you can do with the degree.
User avatar #43 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
This goes for art majors as well.
User avatar #46 to #43 - famouspork (03/05/2013) [-]
pretty much all the university students I know.
#26 - therevanchist (03/05/2013) [-]
Scientific Hypothesis - A reasonable guess performed prior to experimentation (e.g. "I think OP is a fag").

Scientific Theory - A hypothesis that has been rigorously tested by multiple sources and is relatively proven (e.g." Due to these results, OP is most likely a fag").

Scientific Law - A hypothesis that has been tested countless times by multiple sources over decades or centuries and has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be valid (e.g. "OP is a fag").

A handy guide.
#166 to #26 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
User avatar #88 to #26 - thesovereigngrave (03/05/2013) [-]
Actually, a law is no more valid than a theory. The difference is in scope. A law refers to things which are found to be true under specific conditions, whilst theories are broader and encompass more.
#72 to #26 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
"... over decades or centuries..."
OP is pretty damn old too, in that case.
User avatar #33 to #26 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
Laws can be wrong.

Theories can not be wrong.
User avatar #80 to #33 - toosexyforyou (03/05/2013) [-]
The reason you have a lot of thumbs down is because theories can be wrong. The reason it's a theory is because it has been proven repeatedly but that doesn't mean future tests of it won't disprove it.
User avatar #83 to #80 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
I don't care about thumbs either. I'm not exactly going for top commenter here.
User avatar #82 to #80 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
I know that. I recognize that theories can be wrong. I'm just strong in my faith that they are not. I can't think of any that are wrong. (Or have been wrong)
#180 to #82 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
Spontaneous Generation theory, that maggots would come from rotting meat.
User avatar #93 to #82 - thesovereigngrave (03/05/2013) [-]
Miasma Theory, the idea that disease was caused by "bad air" was widely accepted by the scientific community until the 19th century.
User avatar #98 to #93 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
People used to believe that heat was an invisible liquid. When cutting metal, there would be heat. They thought that the metal would bleed this liquid heat when sharpened or cut. They thought fire spit this liquid into the air as it burned. This was a widely known fact for a long time.
User avatar #105 to #98 - thesovereigngrave (03/05/2013) [-]
The point I was trying to make was that the Miasmic Theory of Disease was an accepted scientific theory that was proven wrong.

Though that is a rather interesting fact. I find the scientific ideas of older times to be rather interesting sometimes.
User avatar #108 to #105 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
Yeah, I saw what you were doing. I was pitching in. Science has all kinds of laws they think are fact. Like the earth being flat. Science is proven wrong all the time. It's part of science. We find the holes, and we fix it. That's the beauty of it. You're saying the same thing we are.
User avatar #110 to #108 - thesovereigngrave (03/05/2013) [-]
Now I'm confused. You said, "I can't think of any that are wrong. (Or have been wrong)" in regards to scientific theories. Miasma Theory was in fact a scientific theory, not a law.
User avatar #111 to #110 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
Was it?
Oh hey, it was. Well then, I have an example of a wrong theory now. Thank you.
As I said, I know theories can be wrong, I just didn't know of any. Well, didn't know of any.
User avatar #119 to #111 - thesovereigngrave (03/05/2013) [-]
No problem, I'm happy to help.
User avatar #92 to #82 - toosexyforyou (03/05/2013) [-]
Well I've been reading your comments and I'm getting the vibe that you're trying to say you're all for science because it's right and against religion because it's wrong. And that's all fine and dandy but then you write as if you're someone who takes the bible too literally. "I'm just strong in my faith that they are not." Scientists don't take it on faith, they take it on facts and support.
User avatar #97 to #92 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
I am not anti-religion. Religion can be a good thing if used right. It can be a guideline on how to live a better life and how to treat others with dignity and respect. Sure, A LOT of religions have lost their way in this respect, but their intentions are still there. They simply need to reevaluate what they stand for.

When I talk like that, I'm trying to out emphasis on the fact that science is much like a religion in its own right. I am a man of science. I do not believe in ghosts, spirits, gods, demons, souls, karma, luck, or destiny. Someone once called me empty for it. I'm not one to bash a religion, only it's zealots. That includes the zealots of science. I could be one of them when I want to be. It's a lot of fun to discus these things with people.
User avatar #34 to #33 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
Alright, then let me explain.

Evolution is a Theory. It is not wrong. It can't be wrong. A law, can.

Tale Newtons Laws of motion. I'm sure most of you understand them well enough by now. Those laws work for everything we see in life, but not for everything. Newtons laws of motion DO NOT work on the atomic level.

Another example in simple logic and math, would be parallel lines. You KNOW that two lines running in parallel will never meet. It's the definition of parallel lines. Now, factor in the theory of relativity. The space they travel on is bent by gravitation. Even though they are still traveling straight, they will cross due to the bending of space and time. So even our most basic understanding of simple math can be wrong. That can not happen with theories.
#118 to #34 - kerplunking (03/05/2013) [-]
No, dude. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory and will continue to be changed based on new discoveries. The Theory of Evolution now is different from the one made by Charles Darwin, even if the core concept (natural selection) is the same.
User avatar #123 to #118 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
"Evolution is a Theory. It is not wrong. It can't be wrong."
"No, dude. Evolution is a fact."

Oh, thanks for clearing that up with me. I don't know what I was thinking when I called evolution fact. It's actually a fact! Silly me.

The theory has changed, yes, that's what keeps it true. Much like our Empiricism friend down there. Just because it was wrong, does not mean it stays wrong. Can they be wrong? Hell yes. Anything can be wrong. We change it to be right, an the theory stays. A theory explains how something works. A law explains what will happen. Laws are not wrong, they just have exceptions. (That is wrong in a way, nit that doesn't void them)
#125 to #123 - kerplunking (03/05/2013) [-]
What I'm trying to say is that there is both evolution (a process) and a Theory of Evolution (a scientific theory).

The same way that there is both gravity and a Theory of Gravitation.
User avatar #131 to #125 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
That is right. There is the process and the theory. I never said there wasn't. The theory describes the process. The Law describes the outcome. The law can be wrong under extreme condition. The theory, however, is much harder to prove wrong. Not impossible, but hard. If the law is wrong, we make a new one to accommodate that extreme condition. If the theory is wrong, we adjust it to be correct. That's why we don't have (known) wrong theories. They can be wrong, yes. More likely then not, a few are wrong. When we find out, we will make them not wrong anymore.
#132 to #131 - kerplunking (03/05/2013) [-]
Theories can be completely wrong. The miasma theory for example.
User avatar #138 to #132 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
That theory is no longer a theory. It's simply wrong. It's been called such for a long time, so people still refer to it as such, but it's not a theory anymore. Why? Because it was wrong. We do not talk about the Flat Earth Theory. Back then, it was a theory. Considered true beyond all doubt. We know better now. It's not a theory. It's simply wrong.
User avatar #45 to #34 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
ALL science can be wrong, that's why its called science and not called religion. If it's wrong, you change it. End of story.
User avatar #50 to #45 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
Thank you. That's the exact point I am trying to make.

Although, science is just as much a religion as Catholicism. That's my other point. We put faith in our science and we believe it to be right. The difference is that when we are proven wrong, we accept it, and readjust our beliefs. The person arguing with me below, however, does not want to accept that.
User avatar #85 to #50 - toosexyforyou (03/05/2013) [-]
No the difference between science and religion isn't that we put faith in our science and we believe it to be right (that's just religion, that's not a difference). The difference between the two is that scientists put effort into trying to prove/disprove their faith whereas religious people prefer not to have their faith tested.
User avatar #90 to #85 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
I know, I made that point In the comment you're replying to. We are simile in our faith, but not in our treatment of that faith. In science, we accept that we follow a belief and stride to find truths, even if they destroy what we once believed to be fact. However, even those new facts and beliefs can still be wrong. They may be close to the truth, but they can still be wrong.
User avatar #55 to #50 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
Thing is though, nothing in science is absolute. You said theories can't be wrong, but they can. They have been wrong hundreds of times. The point of a theory isn't to try to explain what is right but to try to explain what is not wrong, and any theory that has existed has been modified heavily. Even the theory of evolution has had many changes.
User avatar #60 to #55 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]

In science, a theory is not a hypothesis. It's not a guess. It's an explanation of how something works, that has been proven to death by test after test. In science, a theory is more true than a law. It's higher than a law. Theories are almost never wrong. I'm not saying they can't be wrong, but I personally can't think of an example of when they are. When something is upgraded to theory, it means we can no longer disprove it no matter how hard we try.
User avatar #69 to #60 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
Even theories that all of science considers right could be wrong. No theory should remain untested. The reason you can't imagine theories being wrong is because they have already been refined through years of study. Don't bother explaining the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, I know the difference. A theory IS a guess that has been tested rigorously enough to be technically NOT WRONG, but no theory is "right". The simple fact is that as soon as you assume something is "right", science stops. Everything should be observed with absolute scrutiny. THAT is science. Additionally, your first comment states "Theories can not be wrong", and that is what i mean by science stopping. You did say that theories can't be wrong, so your statement "I am not saying theories can't be wrong, but ..." is a complete fallacy. I am merely making it apparent that you shouldn't accept anything as fact. Everything in science is a guess and some guesses work better than others. Keep in mind, theories can only be as advanced as our technology allows them. In the future, many of our theories might be regarded as jokes the same way we look at the geocentric model as a joke. I am telling you this for your own good so that you may not get locked in one train of thought and may explore the wonders of our universe with a fully open mind.
User avatar #75 to #69 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
A theory, is not, a guess. It might be in middle school, but not in science. All of science. That right there is wrong. It is not a refined hypothesis, it is true above law. What you are saying is a common misconception. People think "Theory" means guess. People like you think theory means a very good guess. That is not the case. I do agree that a theory by scientific definition CAN be wrong, but I have never seen it before. Laws, can and have been wrong. The way a law and a theory defines something is the difference between weather or not they can be wrong. I've explained how a law can be wrong, and given examples. A theory, because of the way it describes something, is VERY hard to disprove. Now, if a law is proven to be wrong, it can still be a law. If it works, it's a law. There may be extreme cases when it does not work, sure, but for something like that, we simply make a new law to compensate. As for theory, there is nothing more to learn. We accommodate for everything. Even if there is a new discovery, it will fall into the rules of the theory. If not, it's an abnormality with an explanation.

Here's a good example. People are not born with two heads because of evolution, but there is an explanation to describe what happened that does not disprove evolution. We can shoot radiation at a pregnant woman until she gives birth to another radioactive swag baby, but that would not be disproving evolution.
User avatar #99 to #75 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
Additionally, if you DARE make the allegation that I have any misconceptions about the distinction between theory and hypothesis EVER again, I won't bother trying to help you. You can follow science religiously as you are and remain blindly closed-minded. Our model of the atom is a good example of a theory which has changed multiple times.
User avatar #100 to #99 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
Our model of the atom was NEVER considered a theory, buddy. Do you know what we called it?

A model.
User avatar #95 to #75 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
You are too closed minded to communicate with. ALL of science is guesses. Richard Feynman himself said so. People like you think theories are fact, and you are the one that is wrong. You are putting theory higher than it is. Theories are experimentally not wrong, but they are still not perfect and nothing in science is right. Like I said, if you assume we know everything, there is nothing left to learn. The problem is you are associating all theories with the rigor of evolution, but there are other theories which ARE theories but still hazy. You can't disregard them just because evolution is so tried and true.
User avatar #103 to #95 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
You replied to a comment, by me, that said "I do agree that a theory by scientific definition CAN be wrong, but I have never seen it before." and claim I think all theories are fact. That was smooth buddy. You should read my replied before you comment on them.
User avatar #112 to #103 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
Your initial statement was "Theories can't be wrong". Theories are just bits of science that haven't been proven wrong. It doesn't mean they can't be proven wrong. I've read every word you wrote and I assume that rather than reading my statements, you just labeled me as less intelligent and extrapolated my responses based on your initial reaction to them. Atomic theory was initially based on the idea that atoms were all solid balls, but that was disproved. Then the theory was that there was a nucleus with electrons orbiting around it. That wasn't a hypothesis, it was tested and proven to be not wrong. However, the current theory doesn't have electrons orbiting around the nucleus due to new discoveries. Now electrons are everywhere around the nucleus at once. Claiming that models aren't influenced by theories is just another example of being closed minded. You don't want to be wrong, but you are. Get over it and learn goddammit.
User avatar #121 to #112 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
(Over an hour ago) "You know what? I changed my mind. I don't believe theories are all always true. Anything and everything can be wrong. (Within reason)"
Yes, that was my initial comment. That comment in itself was wrong. I realized that, and adjusted my view. Welcome to science.

My point in nearly every comment has been "Science can always be wrong". I don't stand here claiming to be right about scientific anomalies. I don't point at something and say "Undeniable fact forever!" I show things that were fact, or is considered fact today. My point of anything being wrong still stands, and always will. Even if I make the mistake of thinking 2+2=5 (Apply this to any law/theory), being wrong there only boosts the argument that anything can be wrong. I do not claim to know everything. I do not claim everything is right. Quite the opposite.

I don't get what more you're trying to do. You're giving me example after example of my own argument. You're agreeing with me, and calling me close minded.
User avatar #130 to #121 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
I have only been reading this thread, but I see that your statements have been changing over time. I went and read another comment thread where you were given an example of a theory that was proven wrong. Now we can move on because all I was on about was your initial statement, which you repeated more than once, that theories can't be wrong. Thankfully, your mind has been opened. At least we can grow from this. Remember that a theory is just a guess that hasn't been proven wrong even under extreme scrutiny. Scrutiny is the only difference between a theory and a hypothesis. That is what I have been saying the whole time, and you have been saying I was confusing theory and hypothesis. I'll let that all go though since you finally agree that theories can be wrong, that is all that matters.
User avatar #135 to #130 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
I've said to you personally, and initially, three times, that theories can and have been wrong. Congratulations, you're all caught up with me now. Here I was thinking I would have to say it again.

Stop calling a theory a guess. A guess is a hypothesis. And theory is not a hypothesis. It's a pet peeve of mine. There are BIG differences between the two. A theory describes how something works. It is a fact. Wrong theories are changed to become fact. If it is wrong, it is not a theory. That does not apply to laws. If a hypothesis is wrong, it is scrapped, and a new one is made. When that hypothesis is proven right, then it becomes a theory. A hypothesis is neither wrong nor right. It's a guess. A theory is not. The theory of Evolution is not a guess. The theory of relativity is not a guess. That's insulting. You bitch at me for not knowing the difference, when it's you who has it wrong.
User avatar #160 to #135 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]

Now **** the **** up and never speak to me again.
User avatar #183 to #160 - Ruspanic (03/05/2013) [-]
God damn, this is the most heated argument I've ever seen about semantics.
User avatar #184 to #183 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
Its important. As soon as you accept anything as "fact", then progress stops. Everything should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.
User avatar #155 to #135 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
Let me say it simply to you so you can understand.

A hypothesis is a guess, correct?

And a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, correct again?

So a theory is a guess that has been put under scrutiny and proven to be not wrong. You follow me so far?
User avatar #151 to #135 - davidokuro (03/05/2013) [-]
Wrong, a theory is a guess under scrutiny. Call it a pet peeve if you want, you are still wrong. A hypothesis is never proven right in science, it is merely proven not wrong. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it is proven not wrong, but the potential remains for it to be proven wrong under more advanced tests. You said it once that theories can be wrong. "I'm not saying that theories can't be wrong" doesn't count because you were saying that theories can be wrong and you never rebuked that initial statement until the last comment you made. Go ahead and pretend I am not keeping up, you simply are just not following your own comments. You've already changed your stance 540 degrees. Any famous scientist you can name will define a theory as a guess which has been scrutinized. You insult theories AND hypothesis with your definitions and just because you think I am wrong doesn't make you right.
#44 to #34 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
It's the other way around. Laws can't be wrong. Theories are explanations of laws, which may or may not be the best fitting explanation.
User avatar #51 to #44 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
Newtons laws of motion are laws. It's in the name. Those laws do not work at the atomic level. Therefor, they are not always right. They are not wrong, but they are not always right. That is my point. Laws, under certain real life circumstances, can be wrong.
User avatar #37 to #34 - mikemont (03/05/2013) [-]
User avatar #36 to #34 - coolcalx (03/05/2013) [-]
a scientific fact (aka, an observable phenomenon) cannot be wrong, because, well, because that wouldn't make any ******* sense.

a law (a description) can be wrong.
a theory (an explanation) can be wrong.
User avatar #38 to #36 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
Yes, they can be wrong, because what we see is not always right. The best example would be stars. Just because you can see a star, doesn't mean there is a star. That star could already be dead. "an observable phenomenon" is MORE likely to be wrong, because we are the ones observing it. Though we can take tests and make laws all we want, it doesn't make them true. Science is just as much a religion as any other belief, and people like you defend it just as strongly as any religious zealot would. I believe in my science, but I know it can be wrong. We've seen that too many times now. Every time we think we know everything about everything, someone finds something new that resets us. (Einstein is the best example)

A law can be wrong, as explained. You agree there. Laws explain what things do, while a theory explained how they do something. What happens can be wrong, as shone with gravitation on the atomic level. A theory can not be wrong, or it is not a theory. It explains how something works, not what will happen.
User avatar #40 to #38 - nerdierguy (03/05/2013) [-]
Oh, **** . He's just straight up ignoring empiricism.
User avatar #41 to #40 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
And you are ignoring the fact that empiricism can be, and has been wrong. You're treating this like a religion and you're ignoring anything you don't believe in. I say you'tr wrong, and you get assmad. You are wrong. Hell, some examples I've shown could be wrong later on, who knows. We're always advancing and learning. If you hold too tightly to this believe in laws and theories then you're not going anywhere. Accept that it's wrong, understand why it's wrong, and learn from it.

******* Zealots.
User avatar #42 to #41 - nerdierguy (03/05/2013) [-]
I'm not saying empiricism is perfect, I'm saying it should not be ignored.
User avatar #47 to #42 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
It's not being ignored. I'm recognizing that it can also be wrong. It's how we make those laws and theories. If those laws or theories are wrong, then empiricism is wrong too.
User avatar #49 to #47 - nerdierguy (03/05/2013) [-]
If they are disproved, and the truth is found, using empiricism, empiricism was not wrong. It was misinterpreted by the people using it.
User avatar #52 to #49 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
It was used to find that wrong answer, therefor it is wrong. It's not always wrong, but it's not always right either. Just like laws. They are not always right, but that does not mean they are always wrong. There are exceptions and discoveries. Atomic gravitation being the best example. (Read mt reply to anon)
User avatar #54 to #52 - nerdierguy (03/05/2013) [-]
Empiricism is a guideline for observations. How they are interpreted has nothing to do with the system itself.
User avatar #56 to #54 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
I did not say anything to the contrary. I said it does not always work. That statement in itself was brought about by the same system it's criticizing. I don't suggest we abandon it, or reevaluate it, I'm saying that we should be aware that it is not perfect. We need to know that there is always room for error.

You know what? I changed my mind. I don't believe theories are all always true. Anything and everything can be wrong. (Within reason)
User avatar #58 to #56 - nerdierguy (03/05/2013) [-]
I see. I guess I've misunderstood everything you said. I suppose that's another failure of empiricism. I concede the argument.
User avatar #61 to #58 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
Alright. Sorry for being a bit of a dick about it earlier. I had a similar argument with the French a few days ago, and they couldn't grasp the concept of science being a religion. I'm still a bit annoyed by it.

It's nice to talk to someone on FunnyJunk with a brain. Thanks for the discussion. Have a good day.
User avatar #62 to #61 - nerdierguy (03/05/2013) [-]
Now I'm imaging someone arguing with the entire country of France. I know this is a misinterpretation, but I love the concept.
User avatar #63 to #62 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
It was a Representative of the French Arms Division. (What a joke) We NEVER get along. Last time we butted heads, he was going on about America's place int eh Iraq war.
Hey, buddy? You're French. You don't get to **** talk anybody when it comes to wars.
User avatar #64 to #63 - nerdierguy (03/05/2013) [-]
Modern French, sure, but what if he was actually a time-traveling Ney?
User avatar #66 to #64 - bluenebula (03/05/2013) [-]
Then that means America will be back in Iraq again some time in the future.

**** .
#32 to #26 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
laws are obsevable facts
theories are explanations of those facts
hypotheses are guess as to the result of a treatment, which can become part of a theory if validated repeatedly
#30 to #26 - coolcalx (03/05/2013) [-]
a law and a theory are the same thing, except a theory explains something whereas a law describes something.   
they have the EXACT same level of scientific authority.   
in case you don't believe me (I'm an astrophysics major, but what would I know?)   
"Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works [...] Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform."

a law and a theory are the same thing, except a theory explains something whereas a law describes something.

they have the EXACT same level of scientific authority.

in case you don't believe me (I'm an astrophysics major, but what would I know?)


"Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works [...] Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform."
#178 to #30 - anonymous (03/05/2013) [-]
I disagree with what you said. I have been taught by my professors EXACTLY what therevanchist is saying. Your source may be incorrect, or I am, but I will stand by what I said.
#126 to #30 - therevanchist (03/05/2013) [-]
Well **** .

I guess the professor who described the difference to me was misinformed. I will have to notify him if I ever see him again. Thank you for pointing out that I was wrong on the internet. Tradition dictates that I must now perform seppuku.
User avatar #144 to #126 - coolcalx (03/05/2013) [-]
when you say professor, do you mean this person actually had a PhD?

because if so, good God, nothing angers me more than spreading false information as though it's the truth. if he had a PhD, he should know how laws and theories work
User avatar #158 to #144 - therevanchist (03/05/2013) [-]
I would assume yes. He may have misspoke though, I'm not sure. I was going to delete my comment to avoid misinforming people, but I'd like to take any red thumbs people feel I deserve as punishment for my stupidity. Thank you for the clarification.
User avatar #163 to #158 - coolcalx (03/05/2013) [-]
You're welcome.

feel free to bookmark that page I linked to, just in case you want to bring it up somewhere else
User avatar #78 to #30 - toosexyforyou (03/05/2013) [-]
How's the astrophysics field treating you? I'm majoring in aerospace engineering and I'm not so sure about it anymore.
User avatar #101 to #78 - coolcalx (03/05/2013) [-]
I'm also working towards an MBA, so I'll probably end up working as an itemsistrator for some place such as a planetarium.

I don't know much about getting a job though, because I haven't had to worry about it yet.
User avatar #106 to #101 - toosexyforyou (03/05/2013) [-]
Oh you have a job already?
User avatar #148 to #106 - coolcalx (03/05/2013) [-]
no.. "I haven't had to worry about it yet"

I don't have a degree yet
User avatar #25 - azakiel (03/05/2013) [-]
Hah, sure "I want a Medium Grande then".

I'm not very good at this coffee language.
User avatar #23 - Maroon (03/05/2013) [-]
I hate people who pronounce is "porsh-ah"
**** them.
#39 to #23 - joshbritton **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)