|
|
|
|
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/30/2009 6:43:34 AM | RE Msg: 424 by desertrhino:
Some of us don't require a complete answer. We're satisfied with "best approximations."Especially when the only "complete answer" is "goddidit." If you're the type of person that is satisfied with a "best approximation", and would have accepted leeching when it was suggested as a pancea for all illnesses, then I can understand why you might think that religious people would accept "goddidit" and not keep asking questions.
But not everyone does. Certainly many religious people are raised to ask questions about everything, and to accept that although "goddidit" is a partial answer, it doesn't give one a reason to stop asking for more complete answers. Certainly Newton and the whole movement of Protestant scientific investigation in the 1600s, was all about asking more questions, WHY "goddidit", and HOW "goddidi", to elucidate a greater understanding of G-d. Without that, countries that were strongly Protestant would not have moved very far in science at all, not until the present day.
And what they DO say is, "If the police protect us as well as they are able AND I lock my car, it's a lot less likely to be broken into. If I put my valuables out of sight, it's even less likely..." Much better than "God must have a reason for allowing my car to be broken into. I mean, otherwise, why would my unlocked car with valuables sitting on the seats be singled out?!?!" Both of those are what religious people say. Religious people say that one should lock one's car, and keep one's valuables out of sight. But if one does what is responsible management, and one STILL finds one's car broken into, then one puts it down to G-d's actions, and has faith that it's not so terrible that one has lost some valuables, that there is a good reason for it. What you are describing is the religious point of view.
RE Msg: 425 by stargazer1000:
Oh, we've had this discussion before. Science being a slow, steady progress towards answers, one step leading to another, to another. Your expectation of having it all at once. Rather than looking at all the ingredients and doing what it takes to lead up to having stew in your bowl, you're proposing bringing all the ingredients, plunking 'em raw into your bowl and saying "Now you! Be thou stew!" Yes, we've had this discussion before. It's a question of epistomology. Does one need to ask questions, but still work with what one knows at the moment, or does one go to extremes, and say that one either needs all the answers, or does one just accept whatever is known right now, and not need more?
I was taught that the religious view, is to to work with what one knows now, but to still keep asking questions, in all fields, whether religious or scientific.
However, some people seem to believe that it is acceptable in science to just accept whatever the current theory is now, and trust that science will miraculously produce all the answers to everything, eventually, given infinite time, but that the opposite must be true of theology and other religious issues, that one will never produce any answers from studies of religion, but that one must expect all the answers of religion, right now.
Mostly,it's a question of personality type, because some are Js, judging types, who either accept something wholeheartedly, or reject something wholeheartedly, and never question their beliefs. Others, are Ps, perceiving types, who question everything, whether in science, or religion. They don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. They hold onto what we have right now in science, and in religion. But they still keep asking questions of both.
The police reference I really do not get. Read desertrhino's post, and my reply. Do I NEED to use 10,000 words to explain this to you, if others can grasp this in less?
(Please keep your reply under 10,000 words, pls.) I understand that you don't like to read long things. It's not part of POF rules. But it's EASIER. It means you don't have to think quite as much. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/30/2009 9:30:25 AM | It takes FAITH in SOMETHING to do ANYTHING at all.
Since "believe in" is the same thing as "faith", then the answer has to be "yes". The question could be asked like this ... Does it take FAITH to have FAITH in science? Do you have to BELIEVE in science to have FAITH in science? Do you have to BELIEVE in science to BELIEVE in science? The answer is contained in the question. Obviously the answer is "yes".
Have you proven every calculation that leads up to E=MC squared? No. But do you BELIEVE in it? Yes. Why? Because you have "FAITH" in Einstein and his several pages of calculations, that's why. Almost everything about science in these times, is built upon "black boxes" of formulas or proofs of someone else's research. If you didn't have FAITH in the previous science, you would have to prove every formula for yourself, and there would not be enough time in your life to do that.
Have you considered the science behind how a chair works? How do you know when you are about to sit on a chair in a restaurant that it can be trusted to bear your weight? How do you know it is not going to crumble beneath you and impale you with a broken chair leg up the wazoo? You don't know that because you haven't proven it. But you have FAITH in the science of the builder, and you have FAITH in previous proven performance since it has borne the weight of a thousand patrons before you, and you have FAITH in the underwriters that they would not allow a defective chair. You see, it takes FAITH in something to do anything at all. I won't even begin to mention the amount of FAITH it takes to walk TO the chair, since you haven't "proven" that the floor will bear up under the weight of each of your steps. And is the air safe to breathe? I don't know, we better test it before we take each breath. Just because the last breath was ok, we wouldn't want to just have FAITH that the next breath will not be toxic would we?
Like the good book says, in our FAITH, "we live and move and have our being". | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/30/2009 10:21:23 AM |
Yes, we've had this discussion before. It's a question of epistomology. Does one need to ask questions, but still work with what one knows at the moment, or does one go to extremes, and say that one either needs all the answers, or does one just accept whatever is known right now, and not need more?
No, it's a question of common sense! The position that you have repeatedly taken on such subjects as evolution (and no, let's not start another debate on evolution) is that we can't accept evolution as an explanation until we have all the available data. Well that's both impossible and it's also unnecessary. A sufficiently large dataset is enough to produce enough of a result to point the way to a reasonable conclusion.
However, some people seem to believe that it is acceptable in science to just accept whatever the current theory is now, and trust that science will miraculously produce all the answers to everything, eventually, given infinite time, but that the opposite must be true of theology and other religious issues, that one will never produce any answers from studies of religion, but that one must expect all the answers of religion, right now.
um...no. Our approach to science is as it is now and will last as long as the political-sociological factors allow it to (we don't devolve into a theocracy, for instance), or we die as a species. Science is always conditional to our current level of understanding. For that reason, it continues forward.
The study of religion is certainly interesting from a sociological/humanities standpoint but really has nothing to do with study of the physical world. Scientists can believe in God, however, there is no "God" factor in the mathematics of Relativity.
Read desertrhino's post, and my reply. Do I NEED to use 10,000 words to explain this to you, if others can grasp this in less?
I understand that you don't like to read long things. It's not part of POF rules. But it's EASIER. It means you don't have to think quite as much.
I'll leave you to imagine what my response to THAT might be.
Hey, we can dance and debate around the meaning of "faith" all we want. However, in the context of the OP who was asking if "faith" of a religious nature is required to "believe" in science, well the answer is no. Faith of that religious nature is absent proof. Science is all about the proof. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/30/2009 11:06:46 AM | Science doesn't require blind faith. Science is the process of learning about the world through the accumulation of facts and evidence. The word 'faith' is somewhat problematic anyway - it can mean generally trusting in something, or in the religious sense, faith relates to belief without evidence.
Religious faith is believe without evidence. Science is evidence based and therefore does not require the same 'faith', in a semantic sense.
So no, I'd say science does not require faith. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:57:46 PM | RE Msg: 428 by stargazer1000:
Yes, we've had this discussion before. It's a question of epistomology. Does one need to ask questions, but still work with what one knows at the moment, or does one go to extremes, and say that one either needs all the answers, or does one just accept whatever is known right now, and not need more? No, it's a question of common sense! The position that you have repeatedly taken on such subjects as evolution (and no, let's not start another debate on evolution) is that we can't accept evolution as an explanation until we have all the available data.
If I questioned gravitation, people who know it would just explain it to me, with the relevant proofs and experiments that prove it. If I questioned about quantum physics, people would tell me to conduct the double-slit experiment, and why the rest of it follows from that. If I questioned the nature of a cell, people would tell me to put pieces of skin, animal tissue, plants, everything, under a microscope, and examine them. In ALL theories, we don't rely on proof by others. We don't rely on semi-proofs. We don't rely on evidence that SEEMS to indicate the theory. We rely on definite proof. Where we don't have that, there is definite conflict, and many scientists do not agree with those theories at all. We don't call them "religious nuts".
Well that's both impossible and it's also unnecessary. A sufficiently large dataset is enough to produce enough of a result to point the way to a reasonable conclusion. It's NOT impossible, and it's NOT unnecessary. It's EXACTLY what Tycho Brahe did, what Kepler did, and what Newton did, that led us to the conclusion of Heliocentrism. It's the basis of the theory of gravity. What's more, with modern computers, our task is EASY compared to theirs. They had to tabulate and cross-check all their predictions against the data manually. We can do it in seconds using computers. All we have to do is pay some data-entry clerks to put it in, and they are REALLY fast at doing that. Further, it's EXACTLY the sort of thing that we do in every other theory. It turns vague possibilities into exact probabilities. It tells us just how accurate our theories are, even our theories about evolution itself. It's very possible. It's very, very useful. And, it proves the theory beyond doubt, as it removes all argument, and just relies on mathematics and computers, 2 things everyone agrees are without question.
I have a very big concern that you consider this both impossible, and unnecessary, for it this approach, and ONLY this approach, that gave us gravity and heliocentrism. Without this, we would be reliant on Copernican orbits, which are not right at all, or Galilean orbits, which are not mathematical. Either way, we'd be working on the orbital equivalent of leeches. This would be very bad, as without Newton, we could never have hoped to reach outer space, or put any satellite in orbit, which is vital for modern communications.
However, some people seem to believe that it is acceptable in science to just accept whatever the current theory is now, and trust that science will miraculously produce all the answers to everything, eventually, given infinite time, but that the opposite must be true of theology and other religious issues, that one will never produce any answers from studies of religion, but that one must expect all the answers of religion, right now. um...no. Our approach to science is as it is now and will last as long as the political-sociological factors allow it to (we don't devolve into a theocracy, for instance), or we die as a species. Science is always conditional to our current level of understanding. For that reason, it continues forward.
The study of religion is certainly interesting from a sociological/humanities standpoint but really has nothing to do with study of the physical world. Scientists can believe in God, however, there is no "God" factor in the mathematics of Relativity. That's not really true at all. There is no discussion of G-d in relativity, because you're supposed to just not discuss the subject. You're not allowed to say that blacks are stupider than whites in science as well. That doesn't mean it's not scientifically possible. It's just that you're supposed not to mention it, to keep science neutral. The same is true of relativity. The equations don't carry a variable for G-d. The equations COULD. It's quite easy to introduce a free variable for any condition, and then see how it affects the equations, both with the value = true (G-d exists), and if the value = false (G-d doesn't). You're just not supposed to ask the question in the first place. It keeps the subject neutral. But, for all we know, if we DID ask the question, it might return some VERY interesting results. From what I've heard, scientists are reguarly talking about how the equations require G-d, because they aren't Newtonian, like we expected, but relativistic and indeterminate, the annoying way that religious people seem to talk.
Hey, we can dance and debate around the meaning of "faith" all we want. However, in the context of the OP who was asking if "faith" of a religious nature is required to "believe" in science, well the answer is no. Faith of that religious nature is absent proof. Science is all about the proof. Yes, science IS "all about the proof", unlike religion. But that means that we should be asking MORE questions of science than of religion, and we should be MORE sceptical of scientific theories than of religious beliefs, for we have less reasons to accept them. We should be driving all our science teachers mad with constant "why"ing, and letting our religious teachers have an easy time. Yet, we find the opposite is true. We needle religious people constantly, and almost never needle science teachers. Why?
Well, let's look at what happens. Most of us who learned about religion, learned about it at about 5 years old, from our parents. For most of us, our parents aren't the most educated about religion, and are the least able to answer our questions. We started asking questions about the world at about 7 or 8 and continue to ask annoying question after question, which if we continue it, annoys anyone, because eventually, we ask questions that our parent, or our teacher, cannot answer. That, or we decide to stop, to avoid enraging our teachers. That continued until about 13 or 14, when we discover sex and dating. At that point, we stopped asking questions, because we found it really makes us look far cooler and more impressive to the opposite sex to just ridicule the teacher, to make ourselves look smarter than our teacher. Either that, or we decided to work hard to get into college and to get a good job, so we would have money to date, and the best way to do that, is to get teachers to help us, by not getting on their bad side, by asking lots of questions that they cannot ask. So, ironically, the age that we are liable to do our most creative questioning, is when we are old enough to think, but not old enough to have stopped having curiosity. In most of us, that's between 7 or 8 to 13 or 14. But we don't really learn heavy science until about 13-15. Until then, we're treated like children with regards to science, and we're not really treated like people able to handle real scientific theories. So once we've learned about religion, we start asking questions, and that eventually leads us to ask questions that our teachers haven't thought of, and that annoys them so much that eventually they says "Enough with the questions. It's true because it IS". However, by the time that we get to science, we really have stopped all that, and we just accept it all.
The above may not be true at all, as it is only a hypothesis. However, my reasons for suggesting it, is that I NEVER stopped asking questions. When I was in religious class, or in science class, or when I was hearing a talk, about religion, or science, or just about anything, I kept asking questions. I was known for being incredibly annoying, because I just would not stop asking questions, and invariably I would annoy my teachers when I had a question they couldn't answer, which was often. I've HAD science teachers say to me "It's because". I've had science teachers tell me to "just accept it". They don't like me, because I'm that annoying. But that's the way I learn, by asking questions, until I have all my questions answered. So I know by experience, that science teachers are just as apt as religious teachers to say "just accept it", even more so, because religious teachers expect difficult questions from their pupils, but science teachers don't.
So, yes, I can honestly say that scientific theories require the same sort of "faith" as religious beliefs do. But that's only because I treated them equally. You see, I just don't seem to learn by imitation very well. So I HAVE to. I cannot treat science, or religion, the same ways as most people do. I have no way to distinguish between them, to treat them unequally. So, I have treated them equally, and found that I get the same types of results. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/30/2009 7:18:33 PM | Some have said that faith implies the absence of proof or that faith is blind. I would like to suggest that the opposite is true. Faith in something doesn't happen until you have some sort of evidence that it is true. That's why it is common to hear someone say, "I see", when something is explained to them, or "I see what you mean", or "I see what you are saying". When something is opened up to you through whatever medium, your ears or eyes or mind finally SEES it and from then on you have FAITH that it is so.
Why do we have faith in an automobile? Because IT WORKS. It changes people's location and gets them where they need to be. Why do we have faith in religion? Because IT WORKS. It changes people's hearts and lives and gets them where they need to be. The problem with a lot of people is that they haven't hung around religion enough to see it work. And yes, you will have to slog your way past the religious hypocrites and liars to finally see the good that religion does. Just keep reminding yourselves of how you had to slog past the snake oil salesmen and liars in science that gave us things like the Nebraska man, the Colorado man, and the Piltdown man, which were all made from animal bones, shoe polish, and bailing wire.
It's clear that science takes faith, howbeit some are loathe to call it religious faith. Never mind that scientists speak of doing a series of tests "religiously" or refer to the "ten commandments" of theory x, or the "golden rule" of theory y, or "Bible of" theory z. Google any of the religious phrases such as "the articles of faith of ..." and you'll be surprised how many times scientists use them. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/30/2009 10:02:53 PM | Why do we have faith in religion? Because IT WORKS.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/03/30/prayer-heart-surgery-20060330.html
It changes people's hearts and lives and gets them where they need to be.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html
to finally see the good that religion does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx8PdvOELvY
past the snake oil salesmen
Like priests claiming that prayer actually works as long as you pay the tithe?
liars in science that gave us things like the Nebraska man, the Colorado man, and the Piltdown man
All of which were disproved, not by priests or religious men but by OTHER SCIENTISTS. It's a self correcting process. Science is doing what science does best... disproving itself.
It's clear that science takes faith
Wrong. Lets compare. Has religion given us cars, gas, processed food? Or has science? Believing in something because something has been proven to be trustworthy in the past is NOT faith. It is reliability.
Religion has never given us any indication that any religion is the true religion. It has striked fear into many people in order to get them to believe their garble. Religion is NOT reliable, especially when praying does not work.
Never mind that scientists speak of doing a series of tests "religiously"
Equivocation. Your argument is a fallacious argument on the word "religiously." Religiously in comparison to doing something alot is NOT the same as worshiping it.
refer to the "ten commandments" of theory x, or the "golden rule" of theory y, or "Bible of" theory z.p
False analogy. Simply because scientists try to find the secrets of our universe does not mean they are following a religion.. at all. Science has given us technology. Religion has given us strife. Take your anti-technological ways and shove it. Go live with the amish or something. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:39:53 AM | Science's technology has led to strife, loss of jobs, war and better weapons, ad naseaum. Science is no better than the silly people that believe you go to heaven and hell. Science is not GOD. Science, as one post remarked, is just a tool and if you believe that all the problems on earth are created by those who have spirituality and a smack of religion you are indeed not the brightest tool in the shed. Good luck to you for sure.
Science is finite and will always remain so. It fails to dazzle anyone after a certain point. What is the genesis of scientific discoveries and et al ?....is the true marvel. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/31/2009 1:17:09 AM | Science's technology has led to strife, loss of jobs, war and better weapons, ad naseaum. Science is no better than the silly people that believe you go to heaven and hell.
SCIENCE has lead to our life expectancy from 30 to 80. Oh wait, you're 58? You're welcome!
Science is not GOD.
Science, not God, is the sole reason you are alive today.
Science is finite and will always remain so. It fails to dazzle anyone after a certain point. What is the genesis of scientific discoveries and et al ?....is the true marvel.
Forgot who said this, but "The future of scientific advancement is indestinguishable from magic"
Science fails to dazzle anyone? Really? In the last 100 years we have come from one vehicle to hundreds of millions.
In the last 50 years we have discovered space travel and have gone to the moon. We have cured small pox and various other forms of diseases which are used to SAVE YOUR LIFE.
Stop being such an inconsiderate little gnat and give credit where credit is due. Otherwise I expect you to NEVER visit another hospital.. Ever.
if you believe that all the problems on earth are created by those who have spirituality and a smack of religion you are indeed not the brightest tool in the shed.
They aren't the SOLE cause but they are A cause. When everyone follows that of a religion or delusion, they may do questionable acts to appease their religion even if they had the opportunity to be good people despite their religion. Religion is the only force in man kind that can make a good person do bad things without going against their 'will'. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/31/2009 8:52:02 AM |
That's not really true at all. There is no discussion of G-d in relativity, because you're supposed to just not discuss the subject. You're not allowed to say that blacks are stupider than whites in science as well. That doesn't mean it's not scientifically possible. It's just that you're supposed not to mention it, to keep science neutral.
Well, that says all I need to know of you and your "approach" to science. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:41:06 PM | RE Msg: 433 by Verzen:
Why do we have faith in religion? Because IT WORKS. http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/03/30/prayer-heart-surgery-20060330.html
You know this, Verzen.
It changes people's hearts and lives and gets them where they need to be. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html
to finally see the good that religion does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx8PdvOELvY
past the snake oil salesmen Like priests claiming that prayer actually works as long as you pay the tithe?
liars in science that gave us things like the Nebraska man, the Colorado man, and the Piltdown man All of which were disproved, not by priests or religious men but by OTHER SCIENTISTS. It's a self correcting process. Science is doing what science does best... disproving itself.
It's clear that science takes faith Wrong. Lets compare. Has religion given us cars, gas, processed food? Or has science? Believing in something because something has been proven to be trustworthy in the past is NOT faith. It is reliability.
Religion has never given us any indication that any religion is the true religion. Why should it? That's telling others what to do, like when America says it's not OK for Iraq to invade Kuwait, but it is OK for America to invade Afghanistan.
It has striked fear into many people in order to get them to believe their garble. Religion is NOT reliable, especially when praying does not work. OK. That's YOUR opinion. I realise that your opinion makes huge assumptions, that you haven't proved, so I'm going to ignore it.
Never mind that scientists speak of doing a series of tests "religiously" Equivocation. Your argument is a fallacious argument on the word "religiously." Religiously in comparison to doing something alot is NOT the same as worshiping it.
refer to the "ten commandments" of theory x, or the "golden rule" of theory y, or "Bible of" theory z.p False analogy. Simply because scientists try to find the secrets of our universe does not mean they are following a religion.. at all.
Science has given us technology. Religion has given us strife. Take your anti-technological ways and shove it. Go live with the amish or something. Again, that's your view, and I completely understand it, as your country has only existed for 213 years, which is not even 1/10th of human history. Please, stop with American re-writes of history. Stick to what happened, not what you want to believe, or go live somewhere where they support atheism, like China.
Really, sometimes you get my goat.
RE Msg: 435 by Verzen:
SCIENCE has lead to our life expectancy from 30 to 80. Oh wait, you're 58? You're welcome! WOW! Have you never heard that Scotland is considered to have the LOWEST life expectancy in the WORLD, and they live to 59. Where did you get the idea that people died at 30? Logan's Run? Did you never hear of the Okinawans, who routinely live to over 100, with almost no incidence of the diseases and cancers that plague American society? Did you also never hear that they accomplished all this without turning to modern science, and that now that modern science is being introduced into their society, that their people are suddenly experiencing a huge drop in longevity?
Things are not always as you were told. Question everything, especially what you were told by your teachers and lecturers.
Science, not God, is the sole reason you are alive today. Maybe you. Not me. My country has had a long tradition of knowledge that pre-dated science by thousands of years, and that is what kept us alive. How old is your country exactly? How much of its knowledge pre-dates 1776?
We have cured small pox and various other forms of diseases which are used to SAVE YOUR LIFE. Did you know who cured smallpox? Did you know that when he proposed his vaccine, that the entire scientific establishment started discrediting it, to such an extent, that for probably the only time in history, science was BANNED from doing any research into smallpox, to stop scientists from discrediting his cure?
Stop being such an inconsiderate little gnat and give credit where credit is due. Otherwise I expect you to NEVER visit another hospital.. Ever. Equally, so should you. You owe much of your existence to things that existed before modern science, and outside of modern science.
They aren't the SOLE cause but they are A cause. When everyone follows that of a religion or delusion, they may do questionable acts to appease their religion even if they had the opportunity to be good people despite their religion. Religion is the only force in man kind that can make a good person do bad things without going against their 'will'. So you mean waterboarding in the name of "national security" is not a bad thing?
You're still getting my goat.
Science is a tool. Respect it. Treat it as such. Otherwise, you'll take it as more, and your country will give thalidomide to preganant women.
RE Msg: 436 by stargazer1000:
That's not really true at all. There is no discussion of G-d in relativity, because you're supposed to just not discuss the subject. You're not allowed to say that blacks are stupider than whites in science as well. That doesn't mean it's not scientifically possible. It's just that you're supposed not to mention it, to keep science neutral. Well, that says all I need to know of you and your "approach" to science. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/31/2009 2:23:53 PM |
I don't really want to get into a discussion of the benefits of eugenics, Charles Davenport, and the Feeble-Minded Control Bill. If you want to make WMDs and nerve agents using science, that's up to you. But most people seem to believe that using science for negative purposes is not a good thing. Keep it OUT of science.
Classic "non-response" to a statement.
So let me point this particular phrase.
You're not allowed to say that blacks are stupider than whites in science as well.
It's not that you're not allowed to...it's that it's complete racist BS and is completely indefensible. I trust you do not hold such primitive and idiotic views. If you do...well then, that pretty much kills any credibility you have, as far as I'm concerned.
But most people seem to believe that using science for negative purposes is not a good thing. Keep it OUT of science.
Which has what to do with anything that has been mentioned? It seems clear to me that your basic understanding of science is limited at best. Your verbal gymnastics is a clear indication. You seem to think that somehow Galileo, Newton and Einstein were "stops" in the process rather than "steps." They are also irrelevant to science's current approach except that they were a part of the history of science and that they actually did understand the scientific approach. Their only limitation was the technological level of the time.
You seem to have the hardest time understanding that, although we don't have every fossil of every creature that ever lived, we have enough to understand that evolution is the best explanation for our development. Standard approach is to say "well, it's only a theory" which isn't far from what you are saying. "Well, we just don't have enough information." What it really represents is an unwillingness to accept that human beings do not have a preferred place in the animal kingdom.
Bottom line...we can't know it all, all at once. It's only by challenging our current conclusions does science move forward. Simply expecting to have more information before you can finally draw any conclusion is a backward step. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/31/2009 3:35:34 PM | RE Msg: 438 by stargazer1000:
I don't really want to get into a discussion of the benefits of eugenics, Charles Davenport, and the Feeble-Minded Control Bill. If you want to make WMDs and nerve agents using science, that's up to you. But most people seem to believe that using science for negative purposes is not a good thing. Keep it OUT of science. Classic "non-response" to a statement.
You're not allowed to say that blacks are stupider than whites in science as well. It's not that you're not allowed to...it's that it's complete racist BS and is completely indefensible. I trust you do not hold such primitive and idiotic views. If you do...well then, that pretty much kills any credibility you have, as far as I'm concerned.
But most people seem to believe that using science for negative purposes is not a good thing. Keep it OUT of science. Which has what to do with anything that has been mentioned?
It seems clear to me that your basic understanding of science is limited at best. Yeah, right. Just because I'm not a redneck, and actually understand fallacies in your posts.
Your verbal gymnastics is a clear indication. You seem to think that somehow Galileo, Newton and Einstein were "stops" in the process rather than "steps." I understand all too well how they show how science works and doesn't work. If you seem to think that I don't, well, that's understable. Galileo and Newton were before your country existed. They aren't part of your history. So you didn't learn about them, just the theories that exist now, that are based on their work. We in Britain do, because we have a history that extended right through that era, and way before. Einstein was part of the rich history of European science, which again extends centuries before your history began.
They are also irrelevant to science's current approach except that they were a part of the history of science and that they actually did understand the scientific approach. Their only limitation was the technological level of the time. They are a LOT more significant than that, as they show actually how science works, in practice, and not just in theory. However, as I explained, they were before the existence of America, and so you probably have no clue about them at all, and just think you do.
You seem to have the hardest time understanding that, although we don't have every fossil of every creature that ever lived, we have enough to understand that evolution is the best explanation for our development. Standard approach is to say "well, it's only a theory" which isn't far from what you are saying. "Well, we just don't have enough information." What it really represents is an unwillingness to accept that human beings do not have a preferred place in the animal kingdom. No, I understand that there are lots of fossils. However, there was ever more data on the positions and movements of the planets, even in Ptolemy's time. That didn't stop everyone then from coming to the conclusion that the Sun went around the Earth. What changed that, was proper collated analysis of the data, as perfomred by Brahe, and by Kepler, and by Newton. It was conclusions such as Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, which changed things, because they could be confirmed objectively by anyone, such as by observing that any of the planets moved through the same arc in the same time, which anyone with a sextant, or a protractor, or even a piece of string, a few pencils and some paper, could confirm. These conclusions could be confirmed by anyone, without any need to accept the theory of Heliocentrism, and so were objective confirmations, and not subjective confirmations.
However, whenever anyone asks for examples of present day natural speciation, we always get the same responses, that it takes millions of years, or that we can see a few changes in genes here and there, and are expected to take the huge leap to assume this will magically transform into entire speciation. That's not scientific. It's not testable. It's not repeatable. It doesn't give us anything solid to work with.
Bottom line...we can't know it all, all at once. It's only by challenging our current conclusions does science move forward. Simply expecting to have more information before you can finally draw any conclusion is a backward step. Yes, you cannot know it all at once. If you don't have any evidence, you can't prove or disprove something. But if you have mountains of evidence, as so many are keen to point out, then you can draw billions of conclusions, simply from analysing the evidence. That's how all of science is proved, by using maths to take ambiguous evidence such as the effects of leeching, and put them under the microscope of mathematics, because only in mathematics is there a true-or-false answer that can really discern truth from seeming truth. We have the information. We have the mathematics. We have the computers to process the information. There is no good reason not to.
The only reasons I can think of to not process the information and produce quality results are 2:
1) Laziness.
2) There is a genuine fear that analysing the evidence will show that what the evidence is claimed to prove, does not.
I'd rather hope it's #1. I would like to see evolution proved. But only scientifically, and not "it must be true". That's just blind acceptance of what you are told. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/31/2009 5:20:48 PM |
OK. Let's discuss eugenics. Ever hear of Carrie Buck? What institution exactly forced HER sterilisation?
Let's not. It's irrelevant to just about everything in this discussion.
It's racist. But it's still a valid scientific hypothesis.
Half right. Guess which half.
No, I understand that there are lots of fossils. However, there was ever more data on the positions and movements of the planets, even in Ptolemy's time. That didn't stop everyone then from coming to the conclusion that the Sun went around the Earth.
Oh really? And how do you qualify "ever more data?"
It was conclusions such as Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, which changed things, because they could be confirmed objectively by anyone, such as by observing that any of the planets moved through the same arc in the same time, which anyone with a sextant, or a protractor, or even a piece of string, a few pencils and some paper, could confirm.
Cute, you're telling me the history of astronomy.
They are a LOT more significant than that, as they show actually how science works, in practice, and not just in theory. However, as I explained, they were before the existence of America, and so you probably have no clue about them at all, and just think you do.
Well, clearly you don't know the difference between America and Canada. Regardless, ad hominem attacks hardly strengthen your argument.
Galileo and Newton were before your country existed. They aren't part of your history. So you didn't learn about them, just the theories that exist now, that are based on their work. We in Britain do, because we have a history that extended right through that era, and way before. Einstein was part of the rich history of European science, which again extends centuries before your history began.
Ah, so because I live in North America, (Remember Can-A-Da, not A-Mer-I-Ca), I couldn't possibly have ever seen a book on science, history or anything like that. You know, we don't all live in igloos here. We do actually have an educational system. However, affectations of intellectual superiority also don't help your case.
However, whenever anyone asks for examples of present day natural speciation, we always get the same responses, that it takes millions of years, or that we can see a few changes in genes here and there, and are expected to take the huge leap to assume this will magically transform into entire speciation. That's not scientific. It's not testable. It's not repeatable. It doesn't give us anything solid to work with.
Clear indication of your lack of understanding of the science of biologic evolution. It has been said many times before...nothing in science is taken on "faith" as the absolutely last word on anything. Some things are basic. Earth spinning, revolving around the sun, etc. Things like gravity, evolution, etc., are more complex. However, it is safe to say that evolution as a mechanism for species development. That's not faith...that's a conclusion.
Of course, I could challenge you to give an alternative, but you will resort to equivocation and rhetorical games around the basic question. So I won't bother. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/31/2009 5:24:09 PM | Wow, scorpio sure pulled out the stops on the anti-Americanism. I don't think I've seen so many direct, racist, bigoted slams in one post where the poster remained un-banned.
 | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/31/2009 6:10:47 PM |
Again, that's your view, and I completely understand it, as your country has only existed for 213 years, which is not even 1/10th of human history. Please, stop with American re-writes of history. Stick to what happened, not what you want to believe, or go live somewhere where they support atheism, like China.
You win the award for the greatest strawman.. ever..
So you mean waterboarding in the name of "national security" is not a bad thing?
ANOTHER strawman.
Why should it? That's telling others what to do, like when America says it's not OK for Iraq to invade Kuwait, but it is OK for America to invade Afghanistan.
Tu Quo Que
A self-correcting process is a process that doesn't rely on humans. Humans have the choice to self-correct or not. That doesn't mean they always will.
Wrong. It's a process that, by the nature of the process, it corrects itself. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 12:26:39 PM | RE Msg: 440 by stargazer1000:
stargazer1000: The study of religion is certainly interesting from a sociological/humanities standpoint but really has nothing to do with study of the physical world. Scientists can believe in God, however, there is no "God" factor in the mathematics of Relativity.
scorpiomover: That's not really true at all. There is no discussion of G-d in relativity, because you're supposed to just not discuss the subject. You're not allowed to say that blacks are stupider than whites in science as well. That doesn't mean it's not scientifically possible. It's just that you're supposed not to mention it, to keep science neutral.
stargazer1000: Well, that says all I need to know of you and your "approach" to science.
scorpiomover: I don't really want to get into a discussion of the benefits of eugenics, Charles Davenport, and the Feeble-Minded Control Bill. If you want to make WMDs and nerve agents using science, that's up to you. But most people seem to believe that using science for negative purposes is not a good thing. Keep it OUT of science.
stargazer1000: Classic "non-response" to a statement.
scorpiomover: OK. Let's discuss eugenics. Ever hear of Carrie Buck? What institution exactly forced HER sterilisation?
stargazer1000: Let's not. It's irrelevant to just about everything in this discussion. Yeah, when you reckon you've got an argument, you want to claim that I'm not responding. When I counter with saying that I'm open to discuss it, but have some serious weight behind my views, suddenly you're backing off, and claiming irrelevancy.
You claimed I made a classic "non-response" to a statement. Put up or shut up.
It's racist. But it's still a valid scientific hypothesis. Half right. Guess which half.
No, I understand that there are lots of fossils. However, there was ever more data on the positions and movements of the planets, even in Ptolemy's time. That didn't stop everyone then from coming to the conclusion that the Sun went around the Earth. Oh really? And how do you qualify "ever more data?"
It was conclusions such as Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, which changed things, because they could be confirmed objectively by anyone, such as by observing that any of the planets moved through the same arc in the same time, which anyone with a sextant, or a protractor, or even a piece of string, a few pencils and some paper, could confirm. Cute, you're telling me the history of astronomy.
When I post I do regularly question if I am being too sceptical, and I did today. Evolution is much easier for me to accept. But whenever I've accepted any idea in the past, on the basis that so many do believe it, and that it is easy, I've always encountered problems with it. I'd rather not have the same problems in the future.
They are a LOT more significant than that, as they show actually how science works, in practice, and not just in theory. However, as I explained, they were before the existence of America, and so you probably have no clue about them at all, and just think you do. Well, clearly you don't know the difference between America and Canada.
Regardless, ad hominem attacks hardly strengthen your argument. You're right. They don't. However, it's the only good explanation I currently have as to why in the birthplace of evolution, the UK, you don't find the same conflict between evolutionists and creationists, or between science and religion. Even the English branches of Catholicism and Anglicanism both came out and said that evolution was not in conflict with Xianity, a few years after Darwin published, well before any such conflicts in America were ever heard of. It's like there are 2 worlds, the world of British and European science in Darwin's time, and the world of scientific belief in America and other countries that join in its beliefs, well after Darwin. One seems to be about scientific discoveries, that even ordinary people would contribute to significantly, such as in the field of meteorology, and the other seems to be about pushing their beliefs and assumptions on everyone else. I'm sorry if I seem to castigating of your beliefs. But that's just how distinct things seem to be today.
Galileo and Newton were before your country existed. They aren't part of your history. So you didn't learn about them, just the theories that exist now, that are based on their work. We in Britain do, because we have a history that extended right through that era, and way before. Einstein was part of the rich history of European science, which again extends centuries before your history began. Ah, so because I live in North America, (Remember Can-A-Da, not A-Mer-I-Ca), I couldn't possibly have ever seen a book on science, history or anything like that. You know, we don't all live in igloos here. We do actually have an educational system. However, affectations of intellectual superiority also don't help your case.
However, whenever anyone asks for examples of present day natural speciation, we always get the same responses, that it takes millions of years, or that we can see a few changes in genes here and there, and are expected to take the huge leap to assume this will magically transform into entire speciation. That's not scientific. It's not testable. It's not repeatable. It doesn't give us anything solid to work with. Clear indication of your lack of understanding of the science of biologic evolution. It has been said many times before...nothing in science is taken on "faith" as the absolutely last word on anything.
Some things are basic. Earth spinning, revolving around the sun, etc. Things like gravity, evolution, etc., are more complex. However, it is safe to say that evolution as a mechanism for species development. That's not faith...that's a conclusion. It's also a conclusion to say that the Sun revolves around the Earth. It's not a simple conclusion either, as it is based on much scientific work and study of many observations, as evidenced by Ptolemy's Almagest. But we know it's not true. The same is true of the Newtonian theory of gravity. What is alarming, that so many are willing to accept this about everything but evolution.
Of course, I could challenge you to give an alternative, but you will resort to equivocation and rhetorical games around the basic question. So I won't bother. I've repeatedly said that I don't WANT to give an alternative. There are plenty of alternatives you can find on the internet, from creationist-based hypotheses, to alien-based hypotheses. I have no interest in suggesting an alternative. If this is the response I can expect, by suggesting that the theory of evolution might not be correct, huge objections at every juncture, I can expect far more objections to an alternative theory, unless it equally satisfied the assumptions upon which you are basing your views on evolution, and it is precisely those unproved assumptions that are the problem, for they are assumed and yet never proved, and rarely spoken, being taken as gospel truth. If I DO have an alternative theory, then I would rather follow Darwin's example, and not publish my ideas until I am sure, even taking many years in the process, and simply discuss them with those few who are open and accepting that alternatives might exist, and willing to challenge them on their merits, and not on their need to stick to the past.
RE Msg: 441 by desertrhino:
Wow, scorpio sure pulled out the stops on the anti-Americanism. I don't think I've seen so many direct, racist, bigoted slams in one post where the poster remained un-banned. I've been posting on many threads for quite a while now. But I really cannot recall anyone in the UK with the extremes of views seen here expressed by Americans, excepting for alcoholic rednecks, not since I was a kid, and by kids who grew up with parents who taught them nothing about any religion, and kept almost nothing religious at home, but wanted them to go to a religious school, just so their kids would get some education about the religion their parents belonged to. I'm really not kidding. These are the most extreme views I've seen for a long time. But I can't write you all off as rednecks.
What's more, I've noticed that many Americans believe that 80% of Americans are religious Xians. But they wouldn't be counted as religious people at all by Brits, because the tradition of the word "religious" means you keep the tenets of your religion, and going to church is not exactly a formal tenet of Xianity, or Judaism, or most religions. If you don't got to church at all, you're still Xian. In the UK, as with other countries, if you just do the "traditional thing", the outer trappings that religious people do in public, but when you get home after church, you switch off from G-d, turn on the TV, grab a beer, watch the ball game, and then go out and have a pre-marital sex, then you're called "traditional" in the UK, because you're not religious, you don't do what your religion says, you just do the traditional things that mark you out as a Xian. But that seems to be what is associated with religion in America.
Another thing that seems to be hugely common, is that religious people in America are associated with political movements. But traditionally, following your religion meant all the types of things religious figures talked about, and they very rarely talked about even the political issues of their day. I seriously doubt you could find any gospels saying that stem cell research is wrong. At best, it's interpretive. Most scriptures seem to talk about things that relate to the individual, like how to help others, and religious rituals that really only affect the individual or a group of such individuals in a church. Politics seems to be very far from religion for the most part. Yet, it seems that to Americans, politics and religion go hand in hand, almost that if you're religious, then you're lobbying, and if you're not lobbying for something political, you cannot be religious.
Something must be seriously confused in your country, to have such a completely different view of religion, than exists in the UK, and in Europe, even though America was by and large settled by Europeans, and it is Europeans who founded America. It's like Europeans came to America, declared independence, but then cut themselves off from their roots, and in the process, forgot everything that their ancestors took for granted. It's as if America is a cultural vacuum, with no idea of the culture and history of the rest of the world, and is then trying to understand things that are based in that culture, and really don't make any sense outside of it.
RE Msg: 442 by Verzen:
Again, that's your view, and I completely understand it, as your country has only existed for 213 years, which is not even 1/10th of human history. Please, stop with American re-writes of history. Stick to what happened, not what you want to believe, or go live somewhere where they support atheism, like China. You win the award for the greatest strawman.. ever..
So you mean waterboarding in the name of "national security" is not a bad thing? ANOTHER strawman.
Religion has never given us any indication that any religion is the true religion. Why should it? That's telling others what to do, like when America says it's not OK for Iraq to invade Kuwait, but it is OK for America to invade Afghanistan. Tu Quo Que
But I, like millions of Brits, maintain that it is NOT OK to tell others what to do, even if we believe that we have the right answers. We have the right to discuss matters, and to elucidate truth, as part of the right of free speech. But ultimately we don't have the right to force others to stick to our beliefs.
A self-correcting process is a process that doesn't rely on humans. Humans have the choice to self-correct or not. That doesn't mean they always will. Wrong. It's a process that, by the nature of the process, it corrects itself. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 12:59:03 PM |
WOW! You've never heard of waterboarding. Here I thought Americans were only unaware of the history of non-Americans, not their own history.
No. Your comment had LITTLE to do with the subject at hand. You are only ASSUMING that I was referring to water boarding not being a bad thing .(which i think any torture is)
There is nothing in the nature of modern Western science that demands that the process will correct itself
NOTHING pleases a scientist more than to disprove an accepted scientific principle or theory. THAT means that it demands the process to correct itself. When a scientist disproves accepted scientific principles, this could lead to fame or fortune and it can also mean that they can get grant money for whatever scientific study they wish to research.. no questions asked.
human nature does NOT have self-correction of their theories and beliefs. Ergo, it's not self-correcting.
The reason why it's self correcting is do to the vehement insistance with greed and selfishness that they would like nothing more than to prove their colleagues wrong. You see, you fail at understanding what is going through a scientists mind. Like many athletes compete against each other for brute strength. Scientists compete with the mind. They want to prove that they are more intelligent than their colleagues. Intelligence is everything to them. This is why it is self correcting. Comprehende'? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 1:07:59 PM | America was by and large settled by Europeans
The first ones were called PILGRIMS. I wonder why?
Maybe somewhere in the American gene is an intolerance or inability to come to terms with something you don't agree with. I only spend an occasional few months in England these days after leaving it 30 years ago, but I still don't see the rabid extremes that shock me in the US. Much of it stirred up by misrepresentation and lies.
Politics seems to be very far from religion for the most part.
Luther disagreed with the church over money.
The English reformation was about Henry VIII getting a new wife.
The inquisition was about Spanish royalty reneging on repaying loans.
What about Israel today?
I think the two combine when advantages are recognized and otherwise leave each other alone. And I'd say that past history teaches us that it can get very scary when they get together.
Edit:
The reason why it's self correcting is do to the vehement insistance with greed and selfishness that they would like nothing more than to prove their colleagues wrong. You see, you fail at understanding what is going through a scientists mind. Like many athletes compete against each other for brute strength. Scientists compete with the mind. They want to prove that they are more intelligent than their colleagues. Intelligence is everything to them. This is why it is self correcting. Comprehende'?
What an absolute load of bull. If that's the level of science that you have been exposed to, it's no wonder you have such a poor grasp of it. Scientist's minds vary about as much as any other group of individuals. Many just love the challenge and joy of figuring out the greatest puzzles on earth. For the most part, if they don't cooperate they get nowhere. Unfortunately, the dumb attitude represented by that quote is coming to pervade the administration of science and really screwing up the ability to perform good science. Clearly the quote is an expression of delusional faith in what science is and as such is as bad, if not worse than religious faith. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 2:19:48 PM |
What an absolute load of bull. If that's the level of science that you have been exposed to, it's no wonder you have such a poor grasp of it. Scientist's minds vary about as much as any other group of individuals. Many just love the challenge and joy of figuring out the greatest puzzles on earth. For the most part, if they don't cooperate they get nowhere. Unfortunately, the dumb attitude represented by that quote is coming to pervade the administration of science and really screwing up the ability to perform good science. Clearly the quote is an expression of delusional faith in what science is and as such is as bad, if not worse than religious faith.
Either you are wrong or you misunderstood what I was saying. Scientists compete against each other ALL the time. Why? There is limited grant money. Scientists are forced to compete to be the ones who get this grant money. The easiest way to get grant money is by disproving another scientific hypothesis or theory. It's rather difficult to get grant money for your own research if you fail to compete against other scientists in what they are proposing exactly.
Yes, scientists must work together, when they compete against each other in times of strife is where some of the biggest scientific advances come from. That is where Iron Clads came from. Various medical research also came from that as well. Why? Because there was an access amount of grant money. However, if it is around this day and age where we don't have the extra money, than scientist must compete against other scientists. If one manages to disprove a theory that has been accepted in science, than they will have no problem asking for grant money.
^^^^ This is called an argument. I have made several premises and lead to a conclusion.
What an absolute load of bull. If that's the level of science that you have been exposed to, it's no wonder you have such a poor grasp of it. Scientist's minds vary about as much as any other group of individuals. Many just love the challenge and joy of figuring out the greatest puzzles on earth. For the most part, if they don't cooperate they get nowhere. Unfortunately, the dumb attitude represented by that quote is coming to pervade the administration of science and really screwing up the ability to perform good science. Clearly the quote is an expression of delusional faith in what science is and as such is as bad, if not worse than religious faith.
^^^^^ This is NOT an argument. Your entire statement is basically saying, "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong! You have a poor grasp of science and you're wrong!"
The only part that is even remotely an argument is that you made a premise that they love to figure out the greatest puzzles on earth. Than you followed that up with Ad'hominem attacks.
If you want to be taken even remotely serious, I would suggest that you learn how to make arguments before you make yourself sound foolish and arrogant.
What I stated is true. What you stated is drivel. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 4:53:06 PM | RE Msg: 444 by Verzen:
No. Your comment had LITTLE to do with the subject at hand. You are only ASSUMING that I was referring to water boarding not being a bad thing .(which i think any torture is) No. I'm assuming that you think waterboarding is a bad thing, but don't realise that your comments would lead to the conclusion that it isn't.
There is nothing in the nature of modern Western science that demands that the process will correct itself
NOTHING pleases a scientist more than to disprove an accepted scientific principle or theory. THAT means that it demands the process to correct itself. When a scientist disproves accepted scientific principles, this could lead to fame or fortune and it can also mean that they can get grant money for whatever scientific study they wish to research.. no questions asked.
human nature does NOT have self-correction of their theories and beliefs. Ergo, it's not self-correcting.
The reason why it's self correcting is do to the vehement insistance with greed and selfishness that they would like nothing more than to prove their colleagues wrong. You see, you fail at understanding what is going through a scientists mind. Like many athletes compete against each other for brute strength. Scientists compete with the mind. They want to prove that they are more intelligent than their colleagues. Intelligence is everything to them. This is why it is self correcting. Comprehende'?
NOTHING pleases a scientist more than to disprove an accepted scientific principle or theory. Lots of people keep saying this. I wonder why, because normally in science, you have to back things up with lots of examples. I did spend a few years in uni, and most people there seemed to act like that this was the very LAST thing you'd do. After all, academics function by trusting each other. Discredit my theory, you discredit my reputation. If you did that to someone else, you might do it to me. Better not to trust you, and have a word with my good friend the dean to say that there are "other" "more important" projects that need funding.
However, a decent scientific study into the issue, should clear it up. Something with a link to the actual paper, so that I can download it, and read it, and check the conclusions for myself.
When a scientist disproves accepted scientific principles, this could lead to fame or fortune and it can also mean that they can get grant money for whatever scientific study they wish to research.. no questions asked. It COULD, IF he could come up with a BETTER theory, at the same time, like Einstein. Wait a minute. The Royal Society claimed Einstein's stuff was bogus. It was only thanks to Arthur Eddington that his theories got heard. Wait a minute. Didn't Einstein work as a patent agent? Wasn't it because he was looking for a teaching job after university, for two years, and no-one would give one to him? This guy is smart enough to change everything about the way we think, to come up with a theory of gravity that is a million times more accurate than any other theory in the whole of human history, even to almost 100 years after, and yet no-one thought he was bright enough for a teaching job? Could it be because his ideas were just too revolutionary, that no-one in academia wanted to employ him? I wonder.
Mind you, there's always Jenner. One has to wonder why the British government BANNED research into alternative methods into curing smallpox, even though they've never done that before or since, if he got praised to the hilt, and got offered any position, for curing smallpox.
Again, scientific study of the list of people who opposed the established scientific theories, and how they were treated, both upon publication, and afterwards, would be acceptable. Shouldn't be hard for someone as smart as you to find one.
RE Msg: 445 by quietjohn2:
The first ones were called PILGRIMS. I wonder why? Maybe it's because the dictionary says "someone who journeys in foreign lands", and that's what they were doing?
Maybe somewhere in the American gene is an intolerance or inability to come to terms with something you don't agree with. I only spend an occasional few months in England these days after leaving it 30 years ago, but I still don't see the rabid extremes that shock me in the US. Much of it stirred up by misrepresentation and lies. I cannot recall even seeing that of Americans who I met in Israel, bar one, who was adamant that evolution was in complete conflict with religion. I certainly never saw that of my friends who have an American parent, or the parent. They're even more open-minded than the Brits. I never saw it of Canadians in the UK, or of Canadians in Israel either. I have to wonder. Is it just these forums? I mean, I know I'm an a**hole, and ornery to boot. But at least I know I am, and I can accept it of myself, and sometimes to others. Is it really just me? Is there something in my water? Is there something in the American water? I don't know.
Politics seems to be very far from religion for the most part. Luther disagreed with the church over money.
The English reformation was about Henry VIII getting a new wife. Again, Henry trying to force the church to do his bidding.
The inquisition was about Spanish royalty reneging on repaying loans. Yeah, but whose loans were they? If it was the church borrowing from the state, and the church got the state to drop the church needing to repay the loans, then you have a point. But here again, I gather it was loans of Jews to non-Jews, and using the church to get the Jews out, so the Spanish royalty wouldn't have to pay them. Again, politics interfering with religion.
What about Israel today? The government of 1948 was established with pretty much all anti-religious people, who carried out policies that were anti-religious to an extreme of extremes. You really don't want to know, not even about the policies that are a "drop in the ocean". So it's mostly been a case of religious people HAVING to get involved with politics. But you do have a point.
I've reconsidered my views. I'd agree that at times, the church HAS stuck its nose in politics. But from what I know, that's now considered a very bad thing for the church to have done, and generally, it's now considered good form for the church to stay OUT of politics. At least, it was when I was growing up. But now, we live in a world where everyone's views seem validated, and that everyone has the right to lobby for their views to be the norm. To some extent, I see even archbishops of the C of E expressing personal opinions about politics, like one archbishop's denunciation of Mugabe.
But what I learned as a kid, that's not really what they are supposed to be doing at all.
The reason why it's self correcting is do to the vehement insistance with greed and selfishness that they would like nothing more than to prove their colleagues wrong. You see, you fail at understanding what is going through a scientists mind. Like many athletes compete against each other for brute strength. Scientists compete with the mind. They want to prove that they are more intelligent than their colleagues. Intelligence is everything to them. This is why it is self correcting. Comprehende'? There are TWO problems that I can see with this. One is that I've met enough scientists to know that a good half don't really care about money or accolades, and are quite content to just work out their own "little" theories (not little at all, but they probably see themselves that way). Some are good old-fashioned absent-minded professors. But they're not all too bothered about publishing. There are plenty more who are ambitious, though, and plenty in-between the two. However, even for them, Adam Smith's concept of competition being the "invisible hand" behind free-market capitalism, just doesn't work, any more than it does for economic markets in the present day.
Free markets allow for a free change in prices. If you charge too much, then competition can set up against you, and then either you drop your prices, or you go out of business. But it doesn't always work. Take supermarkets. UK supermarkets started out as small shops, just like everyone else. They did better and better, and became chains. But by the 70s, they adopted an entirely different measure, and started acting like corporations. When small businesses started dropping their prices to compete with the big chains, the supermarkets simply dropped their prices to the floor. They sold well below cost. The supermarkets then kept this up, until they forced almost every other competitor into bankruptcy. They could do this, because they were much bigger, and so had more assets to tide them over. When the supermarket wars were won, only a handful of supermarket chains were left. They bought up the other stores for next to nothing, and simply raised their prices again. They eliminated the competition. Now, 70% of all the food bought in the UK is bought from only 3 or 4 supermarkets. They have unbelievable control, and almost no-one can stop them.
Then they went to work on the farmers, because up until then, the farmers were individual manufacturers who sold to whoever they liked. They did similar things to the farmers, and decimated them. Now, farming is almost a dead industry in the UK. The only way you stand to make any profit, is to get on the group of producers that a supermarket uses. You are told what to produce, how to produce it, in almost every way, and even what they'll pay you. But at least you get to sell a reasonable amount of farm goods on a regular basis.
There is new competition, like Lidl and Aldi. But these were already established large supermarket chains in Germany, way before they came here. That's about it.
Really, there isn't much of a free market anymore. Large corporations have wised up. They realised that Adam Smith's principles only work when everyone plays fair, and doesn't use anything else from another avenue of life, such as saved assets to support a bidding war to drive your competitors out of business, or using personal connections to government officials to stack things in your favour. But, once you do that, you have the same problems as you do playing monoploy with your best friend. You and him team up, and wipe out the competition. Then, the winner becomes a battle between the two of you. But, the other players were doomed before the game started. You can even see this in The Weakest Link, where everyone uses psychology, and they knock out the strongest players with the most answers, way before the end.
It's like so many non-mathematical idealistic ideas. Sounds great. Works perfect in theory. In practice, falls apart.
The same problems exist in the academic community.
There are a whole host of more problems with a free-market economy, that carry equally well into academia, due to the nature of how it is funded. That's not because academia is necessarily evil. That's simply because these are conclusions of a model that fits with both free-market economies and academic establishments funded by them and the governments that are in them.
RE Msg: 447 by desertrhino:
Scorpio, you're destroying your own arguments with your bigotry. You might want to get that under control before continuing. Probably. But I'm getting past caring at the moment. It's not like anything important gets said. After all, when we do actually have a thread discussing something that is really useful, that we didn't hear before, and doesn't end in a flame war, it barely gets past one page, with very little information sharing. I learn far more on the techie threads.
Maybe I might find some belief that there is much point to my words. But really, what I've seen, is that if I have the courage, I should just abandon forums altogether and find something far more constructive to do with my life. Until then, you guys have the option to convince me that I'm wrong. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 6:11:30 PM |
Yeah, when you reckon you've got an argument, you want to claim that I'm not responding. When I counter with saying that I'm open to discuss it, but have some serious weight behind my views, suddenly you're backing off, and claiming irrelevancy.
You claimed I made a classic "non-response" to a statement. Put up or shut up.
My point, in point of fact, is that once someone starts talking in terms of "someone is incapable of something based on their ethnicity," they no longer carry any credibility. That is the basis of eugenics. Racism. No matter how many verbal gymnastics you hide behind, you show your true colours. Your anti-American rants certainly don't help.
This is about faith in science. You've done nothing to move forward the discussion, just tried to bog it down in semantical games.
But on any given day, there are 24x60x60x60 observations of about 3000 stars that you can see with your naked eye. In the 150 years since Darwin, that's about 150 x 365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 3000 = 14,200,920,000,000, about 14 trillion different observations, just since Darwin's time.
Which, again, has nothing to do with anything. Astronomy has moved forward considerably. Astronomers aren't just looking at stars. The science of astronomy, like evolution, has evolved. And, to keep things on point, doesn't involve "faith."
Now, if in your very round about way, you are trying to say that science relies on certain assumptions to move forward, then that is true. But that's a far cry from faith.
I can expect far more objections to an alternative theory, unless it equally satisfied the assumptions upon which you are basing your views on evolution, and it is precisely those unproved assumptions that are the problem, for they are assumed and yet never proved
And have you considered the possibility that the assumptions are yours?
then I would rather follow Darwin's example, and not publish my ideas until I am sure, even taking many years in the process, and simply discuss them with those few who are open and accepting that alternatives might exist, and willing to challenge them on their merits, and not on their need to stick to the past.
Every scientific discipline has a "past." So what? The past of a scientific discipline doesn't dictate the future of it. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 7:54:07 PM | RE Msg: 449 by stargazer1000:
My point, in point of fact, is that once someone starts talking in terms of "someone is incapable of something based on their ethnicity," they no longer carry any credibility. Eugenics never claimed that. You're thinking of pre-Darwinian views of people like the natives of Tierra Del Fuego. Eugenics was based on Darwin's theories. It's the theory that certain groups are less capable, based on their genetics. Read up on it. It was based on the ideas of Galton, Darwin's cousin, who developed the science of fingerprints. Even Darwin wrote to Galton that his ideas had merit.
I agree that it should not be explored, but on the basis that not all science will result in good results for humanity. But it's still technically science.
Racism. No matter how many verbal gymnastics you hide behind, you show your true colours. I can see that you prefer to claim that because I disagree with you over this, that makes me a racist. That's not my problem. That's yours.
This is about faith in science. You've done nothing to move forward the discussion, just tried to bog it down in semantical games. This is about faith in science, and you're proving the point. Every time I try to move the discussion a little forwards, you try to bog it down.
Let's be honest. You tried to argue that theists use the "god of the gaps" theory, because you've heard it before. I simply pointed out a flaw in your reasoning, that shows that the theory is fundamentally flawed. That's floored you, because it's been used hundreds of times on this site alone, and this is probably the only time that you've come across a clear refutation of it. You could either have agreed, or not. If you agreed, that means that there is an argument that you've heard many times about theists, that you've never questioned if it was false. If one such argument that you took for granted could be fundamentally flawed, then that means that many arguments that you've heard that criticise theists could be flawed, and you don't know the flaw either. There could be even major flaws in your main beliefs about theism, that you don't know about either. Effectively, this threatens your whole set of beliefs.
But let's be more honest. You don't believe that the "god of the gaps" argument was credible in the first place. So if you were to believe in theism, you wouldn't believe in it either. So why should you believe that any theist would?
There is a very simple answer, that is very clearly summed up by a quote from "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip":
Harriet Hayes: I don't even know what the sides are in the culture wars.
Matt Albie: Well, your side hates my side because you think we think you're stupid and my side hates your side because we think you're stupid. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0882620/quotes
That pretty much sums up the problem. Theists must be nuts. Theists have faith, ergo, faith cannot be something that sane people like you have. You believe in science. Ergo, science cannot involve faith.
That's the entire argument against science requiring any level of faith. But, once you take away the assumption that theists are nuts, you don't have any problems in saying that science requires faith. On the contrary, you start finding any manner of sources agree with you, like Sartre.
But on any given day, there are 24x60x60x60 observations of about 3000 stars that you can see with your naked eye. In the 150 years since Darwin, that's about 150 x 365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 3000 = 14,200,920,000,000, about 14 trillion different observations, just since Darwin's time. Which, again, has nothing to do with anything. Astronomy has moved forward considerably. Astronomers aren't just looking at stars. The science of astronomy, like evolution, has evolved. And, to keep things on point, doesn't involve "faith."
Now, if in your very round about way, you are trying to say that science relies on certain assumptions to move forward, then that is true. But that's a far cry from faith. If those assumptions have all been proved, then it's a far cry from faith. But then they're not assumptions either. If they are assumptions, they haven't been proved, and if they haven't been proved, then you need faith to believe in them AND the things that are built on them.
I can expect far more objections to an alternative theory, unless it equally satisfied the assumptions upon which you are basing your views on evolution, and it is precisely those unproved assumptions that are the problem, for they are assumed and yet never proved And have you considered the possibility that the assumptions are yours?
then I would rather follow Darwin's example, and not publish my ideas until I am sure, even taking many years in the process, and simply discuss them with those few who are open and accepting that alternatives might exist, and willing to challenge them on their merits, and not on their need to stick to the past. Every scientific discipline has a "past." So what? The past of a scientific discipline doesn't dictate the future of it.
Einstein forced such a change, because from around 300 BCE until 1905, for around 2200 years, the scientific world took it that the universe functioned on Euclid's Fifth Axiom as true, without proof. Then Einstein proved the universe was non-Euclidean. Wikipedia lists 14 notable figures who criticised his theory due to the lack of empirical evidence at the time, but leaves out Lord Kelvin, so there are many more. To be honest, it was really Arthur Eddington that proved it, with the first empirical tests in 1919. It really was still being questioned until the 1950s when American pilots proved it, even though according to Roger Penrose, it's millions of times more accurate than any other theory or experiment in all of scientific history. The mind simply boggles at the thought that the most reliable and accurate theory we have was so unaccepted, and so criticised. This isn't the only case. Jenner, the doctor who discovered the smallpox vaccine, received so much criticism that the government BANNED anyone developing an alternative cure, so great was the possibility of discrediting one of the greatest medical cures we have ever had. There are plenty of other such cases I've come across. So yes, there is much to show me that this is true.
Mind you, I did even postulate a few theories on other subjects on the forums here. But they weren't very well received. So I think I'll just stick with developing my ideas in my own time. This is a great place for having an argument over science, or religion, or for giving people dating advice. But it's not so great for developing thinking all that much. | |
|
|
| Page 18 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
