Once again I disagree, a strict keeping of theories to that which is known to be real is what is required. Remove all the fantasy, all the magic. All my theories are a strict mechanical interpretations of all interactions based entirely on things that are known to exist and it works. Fantasy is the bane of science.
Hawkings on God the Big Bang
- Thread starter GT WT
- Start date
i agree with Ray. When i think of the modern scientific method, i think of R.A. Fisher and the beginnings if statistics in the early 20th century. Careful design of experiments, clearly stating all assumptions and then quantifying the degree of uncertainty of the results...the uncertainty clearly dependent on the assumptions and the design of the experiment. Popular science books and armchair evolutionary biologists are a long way from that. It may be interesting, but don't mistake speculation and (extremely) educated guesses for the true fruits of the scientific method.
my opinion anyhow
my opinion anyhow
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
The things that are inessential are those things which are fantasy. Unfortunately a great deal of fantasy has found its way into the standard model, generally because the correct answer was missed or ignored.
Three of the most important examples that I am aware of are as follows.
1. The failure to recognize that Newtonian Mechanics describes some of the elements of a fifth fundamental force. If you think about the precession of a spinning top you realize that the 4 so called fundamental forces do not describe this motion.
2. The general ignoring of Nernst's theory that Planck's harmonic oscillator applies to the vacuum has prevented us from understanding the mode of force transmission through space.
3. The false identification of neutrons as a fundamental particle instead of a combination of an electron and proton took particle physics into an entirely wrong direction.
Those are just three big ones, that each lead to dozens more. In each case the fantasies of physicists replaced reality.
Three of the most important examples that I am aware of are as follows.
1. The failure to recognize that Newtonian Mechanics describes some of the elements of a fifth fundamental force. If you think about the precession of a spinning top you realize that the 4 so called fundamental forces do not describe this motion.
2. The general ignoring of Nernst's theory that Planck's harmonic oscillator applies to the vacuum has prevented us from understanding the mode of force transmission through space.
3. The false identification of neutrons as a fundamental particle instead of a combination of an electron and proton took particle physics into an entirely wrong direction.
Those are just three big ones, that each lead to dozens more. In each case the fantasies of physicists replaced reality.
MaduroUTMB
2,500+ Posts
Has string theory come up with a single testable hypothesis yet?
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
...the main problem i have is with people who build religions/cults/dogmatic groups around fantasies which have no scientific basis at all.
My problem is not so much people who do that, for all religions are basically whacko in some areas, but people who whose religion contains those fantasies and then who try to support them as if they are science. Like, man living with dinos, the earth being 10,000 years old, evolution not being real. I don't think Jesus is enamored with ignorance.
My problem is not so much people who do that, for all religions are basically whacko in some areas, but people who whose religion contains those fantasies and then who try to support them as if they are science. Like, man living with dinos, the earth being 10,000 years old, evolution not being real. I don't think Jesus is enamored with ignorance.
i still believe in god or a god of some sort. just don't try and prove the existence of god using science....
Or pretend that the collection of stories known as the Christian bible has any authority whatsover in describing the supreme being.
It's just a collection of stories like every other holy text. No better, no worse. It's suprising that so many people can't understand that. They just have to believe that their collection of stories is the one, true collection. People are funny that way.
Or pretend that the collection of stories known as the Christian bible has any authority whatsover in describing the supreme being.
It's just a collection of stories like every other holy text. No better, no worse. It's suprising that so many people can't understand that. They just have to believe that their collection of stories is the one, true collection. People are funny that way.
A
ADMIRALSTOCKDALE
Guest
wewokahorn
250+ Posts
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
at one time 99% of the earths population believed the earth was flat, were they rational when it came to that subject?
When people thought the world was flat there was a lack of scientific evidence and explanation (in fact, the scientific method wasn't even present then) to counter that line of thinking. Today we do have sufficient scientific evidence and experience to more fully answer those "irrational" questions.
Also, what we have here seems to be not only people who believe in an active supreme being who takes a personal interest in your life (I guess he was taking a nap during the Holocaust) but that their particular religion holds a monopoly on the description of that supreme being.
But back to the rational/irrational aspect. Some polls show that 20 (or 25)% of the American people think the sun revolves around the earth. Quite a few more don't believe in evolution. They hold these scientifically ignorant views almost exclusively as a result of their religious beliefs.
Christianity, and religion, should be a pursuit open to all, not just those who fail to comprehend some basic elements of natural science.
When people thought the world was flat there was a lack of scientific evidence and explanation (in fact, the scientific method wasn't even present then) to counter that line of thinking. Today we do have sufficient scientific evidence and experience to more fully answer those "irrational" questions.
Also, what we have here seems to be not only people who believe in an active supreme being who takes a personal interest in your life (I guess he was taking a nap during the Holocaust) but that their particular religion holds a monopoly on the description of that supreme being.
But back to the rational/irrational aspect. Some polls show that 20 (or 25)% of the American people think the sun revolves around the earth. Quite a few more don't believe in evolution. They hold these scientifically ignorant views almost exclusively as a result of their religious beliefs.
Christianity, and religion, should be a pursuit open to all, not just those who fail to comprehend some basic elements of natural science.
Is truth a sub-set of knowledge, or is knowledge a sub-set of truth?
Truth just seems to be a religious and politically charged term thrown around by those who attempt to justify the perceived inherent righteousness of their claims. "You're bad/liberal/heathen because you don't believe that there exists a real truth." - or something like that.
Truth, as it is used, seems to be equivalent to morals. Is it a "truth" not to kill somebody? Well yes, until and unless you have a need to kill somebody. Is it a truth that there is a god? To some yes. Is it a truth that the only real god happens to the Christian version? Again, to some yes. But to others, no. So in many instances your truth is not other's truth.
Scientific truth? The term truth doesn't really apply to science. The truth is whatever the current evidence and experience supports. This could change, making scientific "truth" not an absolute thing. This seems to bother a subset of the religious crowd who favor their "truths" to be universal and unchanging.
In that sense there's a psychological thing going on where people want to minimize uncertainty or have some kind of uber-parent deal going on (that helps explain the popularity of the Jesus character).
But all that is well and good in a religious context. All religions probably promote these kinds of ideas and thier congregants are probably the better off for it. It makes them happy and content so go for it. After all, all religions are irrational. Some a lot more, some a little less. But when your religion causes you to ignore the evidence and experience of the natural world: fossils, geology, astronomy? What's up with that? Besides thinking that your faith is strong because you don't fall victim to "the world"?
Truth just seems to be a religious and politically charged term thrown around by those who attempt to justify the perceived inherent righteousness of their claims. "You're bad/liberal/heathen because you don't believe that there exists a real truth." - or something like that.
Truth, as it is used, seems to be equivalent to morals. Is it a "truth" not to kill somebody? Well yes, until and unless you have a need to kill somebody. Is it a truth that there is a god? To some yes. Is it a truth that the only real god happens to the Christian version? Again, to some yes. But to others, no. So in many instances your truth is not other's truth.
Scientific truth? The term truth doesn't really apply to science. The truth is whatever the current evidence and experience supports. This could change, making scientific "truth" not an absolute thing. This seems to bother a subset of the religious crowd who favor their "truths" to be universal and unchanging.
In that sense there's a psychological thing going on where people want to minimize uncertainty or have some kind of uber-parent deal going on (that helps explain the popularity of the Jesus character).
But all that is well and good in a religious context. All religions probably promote these kinds of ideas and thier congregants are probably the better off for it. It makes them happy and content so go for it. After all, all religions are irrational. Some a lot more, some a little less. But when your religion causes you to ignore the evidence and experience of the natural world: fossils, geology, astronomy? What's up with that? Besides thinking that your faith is strong because you don't fall victim to "the world"?
THEU
2,500+ Posts
Perham,
As someone who studied history at UT, and more specifically religious history, I find the way you talk about science to be with a religious worldview. It is interesting in that you seem to dismiss all religious belief as the same, while not saying all scientific belief (current theories) have equal merit. I wonder why that is.
There are competing claims of what is true in science, just as there are in religion. They can be rationally talked about and evaluated. For instance, Jesus. Did he really live? What is the historical evidences? If Jesus did live, who was he? Was he just a man? Where was he born? etc... The same can be done with any religious historical figure, just as with any historic leader or ruler.
You seem to act as if religious belief has no root in rational thought. I, and most religious persons would disagree. Also it was Soren Kierkegaard who coined the phrase 'leap of faith' in the 1800s. Many Christians I know don't believe in taking a leap of blind faith, but they are willing to take a step of faith.
The reason Christians believe in the Bible is not for the reasons you seem to state. The Bible is the most researched and pulled apart text of the ancient world. (I say that really about the New Testament, because the texts we have for it are actually older and more attested to than the Old Testament).
If you want to get into a debate about textual varients etc. Most serious Christians I know are more whan willing to do so.
As someone who studied history at UT, and more specifically religious history, I find the way you talk about science to be with a religious worldview. It is interesting in that you seem to dismiss all religious belief as the same, while not saying all scientific belief (current theories) have equal merit. I wonder why that is.
There are competing claims of what is true in science, just as there are in religion. They can be rationally talked about and evaluated. For instance, Jesus. Did he really live? What is the historical evidences? If Jesus did live, who was he? Was he just a man? Where was he born? etc... The same can be done with any religious historical figure, just as with any historic leader or ruler.
You seem to act as if religious belief has no root in rational thought. I, and most religious persons would disagree. Also it was Soren Kierkegaard who coined the phrase 'leap of faith' in the 1800s. Many Christians I know don't believe in taking a leap of blind faith, but they are willing to take a step of faith.
The reason Christians believe in the Bible is not for the reasons you seem to state. The Bible is the most researched and pulled apart text of the ancient world. (I say that really about the New Testament, because the texts we have for it are actually older and more attested to than the Old Testament).
If you want to get into a debate about textual varients etc. Most serious Christians I know are more whan willing to do so.
It is interesting in that you seem to dismiss all religious belief as the same...
That is not a dismissal. Why do you think it is? All religions are to some extent a reflection of one's culture, what a group holds dear and sacred. To say that all religions do this is hardly a dismissal. It's interesting that you think it is. Why is that?
...while not saying all scientific belief (current theories) have equal merit.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. All scientific "belief" does not have equal merit. All scientific theories do not have equal evidence. Some are more tenuous than others. Please explain what you mean by your statement.
There are competing claims of what is true in science, just as there are in religion. They can be rationally talked about and evaluated. For instance, Jesus. Did he really live? What is the historical evidences? If Jesus did live, who was he? Was he just a man? Where was he born?
These are historical questions more than religious questions. The religious questions would be regarding the divinity of Jesus; is Jesus the only vehicle by which one attains salvation; was Jesus born of a virgin; was he resurrected, stuff like that.
You seem to act as if religious belief has no root in rational thought.
Not at all, and you clearly have not been reading my posts carefully if that is your conclusion. First, I have rarely touched on the "root" of religion. My screeds are devoted to the current scientifically ignorant subset of fundamentalist, literalist Christians who eschew evolution and other well scientifically supported areas.
I am not talking about believing in god being an irrational act. It's very rational. Where the thread of rationality starts to fray, not much, but at least starts, is when one refuses to accept any other version of religion but their own as being valid. The fraying increases when uses their religion to refute science.
The reason Christians believe in the Bible is not for the reasons you seem to state. The Bible is the most researched and pulled apart text of the ancient world.
The reason Christians believe in the bible is because the bible says it is the word of god. Some take that more literally than others. As far as it being the most "researched and pulled apart text of the ancient world", I'll let you carry that torch. Whether that claim goes to certain books of the bible (for certainly not all books meet that standard) or to Homer's Odyssey really matters not. Perhaps the Koran should get that honor?
The varying texts of the bible have nothing to do with whether one refuses to accept evolution, or thinks the sun revolves around the earth.
That is not a dismissal. Why do you think it is? All religions are to some extent a reflection of one's culture, what a group holds dear and sacred. To say that all religions do this is hardly a dismissal. It's interesting that you think it is. Why is that?
...while not saying all scientific belief (current theories) have equal merit.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. All scientific "belief" does not have equal merit. All scientific theories do not have equal evidence. Some are more tenuous than others. Please explain what you mean by your statement.
There are competing claims of what is true in science, just as there are in religion. They can be rationally talked about and evaluated. For instance, Jesus. Did he really live? What is the historical evidences? If Jesus did live, who was he? Was he just a man? Where was he born?
These are historical questions more than religious questions. The religious questions would be regarding the divinity of Jesus; is Jesus the only vehicle by which one attains salvation; was Jesus born of a virgin; was he resurrected, stuff like that.
You seem to act as if religious belief has no root in rational thought.
Not at all, and you clearly have not been reading my posts carefully if that is your conclusion. First, I have rarely touched on the "root" of religion. My screeds are devoted to the current scientifically ignorant subset of fundamentalist, literalist Christians who eschew evolution and other well scientifically supported areas.
I am not talking about believing in god being an irrational act. It's very rational. Where the thread of rationality starts to fray, not much, but at least starts, is when one refuses to accept any other version of religion but their own as being valid. The fraying increases when uses their religion to refute science.
The reason Christians believe in the Bible is not for the reasons you seem to state. The Bible is the most researched and pulled apart text of the ancient world.
The reason Christians believe in the bible is because the bible says it is the word of god. Some take that more literally than others. As far as it being the most "researched and pulled apart text of the ancient world", I'll let you carry that torch. Whether that claim goes to certain books of the bible (for certainly not all books meet that standard) or to Homer's Odyssey really matters not. Perhaps the Koran should get that honor?
The varying texts of the bible have nothing to do with whether one refuses to accept evolution, or thinks the sun revolves around the earth.
Murphy'sBoy
1,000+ Posts
I enjoy this back and forth on religion. For me, The Golden Rule is good enough. I do not need to read a sacred book (Bible, Koran, etc.) to teach me how to act. This is not meant to knock anyone's beliefs (which are just as valid as mine). I find religion unnecesary from my point of view.
THEU
2,500+ Posts
"My problem is not so much people who do that, for all religions are basically whacko in some areas, but people who whose religion contains those fantasies and then who try to support them as if they are science. Like, man living with dinos, the earth being 10,000 years old, evolution not being real. I don't think Jesus is enamored with ignorance."
Perhaps I misread this quote from you in an earlier post. You seemed to say that all religions are wacko in areas. To me that seems to say that you are lumping all religions into the same group. I do see where you are stating that your main beef with any religious person is their denying what seems to be well supported scientific evidences. I can understand that point of view.
Perham, you are one of the guys on here with whom I feel I could have a beer and a good conversation, so that seems as a positive to me. I am trying to understand where you are coming from, not pick an unnecessary fight.
I do have a question. If 2,000 years ago someone walked around saying the world was round with ZERO scientific evidences, and all the scientific world (not that there was a huge scientific community) stating the world is flat... what would you think of that guy? Can some things be true contrary to seemingly all known scientific data?
Perhaps I misread this quote from you in an earlier post. You seemed to say that all religions are wacko in areas. To me that seems to say that you are lumping all religions into the same group. I do see where you are stating that your main beef with any religious person is their denying what seems to be well supported scientific evidences. I can understand that point of view.
Perham, you are one of the guys on here with whom I feel I could have a beer and a good conversation, so that seems as a positive to me. I am trying to understand where you are coming from, not pick an unnecessary fight.
I do have a question. If 2,000 years ago someone walked around saying the world was round with ZERO scientific evidences, and all the scientific world (not that there was a huge scientific community) stating the world is flat... what would you think of that guy? Can some things be true contrary to seemingly all known scientific data?
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
