|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted January 28, 2008 04:22 AM |
|
|
You know, I still follow this thread with some interest, although to be honest, it is lately more and more of an amused sort of interest. The endlessly circuitous arguments are certainly entertaining.
In any case, I lack the time to participate as much as I used to, but I feel I must interject here and say something in response to The Death's latest post. Actually, I believe I still owe The Death a response to an earlier post he wrote on probability, but I just never got around to it and I'm not even sure now how many pages back it is. So, we'll forget that debt I owe him for now and stick with the present topic:
The Death wrote:
Quote:
Like I said (a lot of pages back), science is limited to our analogies.
I fail to see how this is so. Clearly, science as a discipline possesses a structure that is built upon itself. In that regard, scientists will base explanations for new observations upon similar explanations to unrelated or partially related phenomena, because, obviously, it's an easy place to start. I suppose this is what you mean by science uses analogies. This is certainly a fair statement. However, to suggest that science is limited to this sort of approach is just wrong. Many great examples of scientific progress came through the proposition of theories that were quite unlike anything ever proposed before, and while these types of ideas often met with (sometimes substantial) initial resistance, given enough acquired evidence, they were ultimately accepted and hailed as successes despite not being based on "analogous" pre-existing frameworks.
Quote:
Science thinks that life based on other forms (excluding Carbon or Sillicon) is much less likely, here's why:
First, that's not really correct, and second, you are mixing up science as a discipline and the scientists themselves, who are human.
As it so happens, there are reasons, physical and chemical ones, to believe that carbon is the element most suited to support "life". I put life in quotations marks because I'm fairly confident that if you asked 10 people what the criteria for life are, you'd get 10 different answers. It's an important sidenote though because there are examples of inorganic systems that behave, in a manner of speaking, like living systems, and they not involve carbon or silicon. It has even been proposed by some people that such "primitive" inorganic living systems are abiogenetic precursors to organic "life" here on earth. But are they themselves alive? Good question. Are they complex living organisms? Certainly not. Nevertheless, what is a certainty is that carbon has a certain means of bonding to other carbons that is somewhat unique, and therefore really carbon is the element most suited for the basis of a whole subdiscipline of chemistry, for the generation of enormous libraries of chemical compounds required to sustain complex organisms. There is an element of analogy here, of course, when one therefore concludes that carbon is the most "likely" basis of life. But when one says as much, there is certainly no way to calculate any "probability" for this statement being true. And more importantly, while many scientists would agree that carbon is the "most likely" basis for life on some other planet, these scientists do not make such statements simply because carbon-based life is what they see here (on earth), and therefore somehow conclude illogically that so it much be elsewhere. No, they make such a conclusion because there is a scientific reason to feel that this is the case, and even so, no serious scientist, I think, would ever say that (complex) life elsewhere could NOT be based on non-carbon elements. If the bizarre menagerie of life here on earth has taught us anything, it's that life can adapt to some pretty strange circumstances.
Oh crap, there's that word "adapt".
Quote:
what's funny (yeah funny) is that if we discover some new form of creature based on something else, spontaneously the probabilities get higher. Weren't they supposed to be in this way from the beginning if science explains so called 'truth'? I know you'll say it improves with time, changes opinions, etc, but the problem here is that it's completely subjective. When someone says "x is more probable than y", he should back it up of why he thinks so.
I'm not sure what is all this talk about probabilities. Either there IS non-carbon life out there, or there isn't. There isn't a "chance" that there is. Nobody is evaluating such probabilities, so I'm not sure why you are trying to pretend that scientists do. Sounds like a strawman argument to me.
Quote:
Science is also based on beliefs. While religions usually have priests as those who must be trusted, science has scientists and those that perform "the research".
There IS an element of belief to science, but it is not inherent to science itself. Rather it is based on the scientist's belief that the universe - and all aspects of it - is grounded in empiricism. This is different than religion, which is based completely on faith. So while yes, there is an element of belief to science, that does not make science a religion, nor does it mean that any analogies should be drawn between the two. This is not to impugn religion. Merely it is to say that science and religion are two very different things, and your attempt to draw some sort of parallels between them just because they both happen to incorporate varying degrees of belief is unconvincing.
Quote:
Seriously, when is the last time you performed an experiment or research to prove anti-matter? Relativity theory? Quarcs and other sub-atomic particles? ???
I am a scientist and perform real experiments all the time. So... where does that leave your argument? And even so, let me play along for a second. I am not a particle physicist. However, I know that, if I wanted to, I could go and educate myself in particle physics, join a lab, and do these very experiments that you claim I must "trust" were done/interpreted correctly. So you see, while it is convenient for me to believe that Joe Physicist knows what he is talking about, it is not necessary. I have every capability of putting in the time and doing it myself, and removing this element of spurious belief from your equation. On the other hand, religious belief is not so easily circumvented. While certainly, if I am religious, I must trust and belief that Joe Priest knows what the heck he is talking about, but that is the end of the road. There's no way for me to go and verify it for myself. There's no way to remove that element of brief from the equation of religion. Your analogy doesn't really hold.
Quote:
No, you read all these in newpapers, magazines, books or scientific agendas. Or perhaps you heard them from someone else (doesn't matter). Point is, you didn't do them yourself, so whatever it is, you're trusting the base source, which are those that wrote their research papers.
The other point here is that while you as an average human being is required to just trust that Joe Physicist knows what he is talking about (the belief element you have alluded to), John Physicist, next door, is not required to. In fact, when Joe Physicist makes a statement about his findings, it is almost assured that John Physicist is checking up on his work prior to Joe's publication, and Mary Physicist is using Joe's results in her own work, and then there's Jack Physicist who doesn't belief Joe Physicist at all because he has his own theory, and on and on. The point being, that science is not static. Statements are not just made and accepted permanently. They are constantly being challenged and updated. What may be believed one moment is completely discarded the next in light of new evidence. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how this is analogous to the way the element of belief in religion works?
Quote:
For example, let's take particle accelerator research. Obviously not everyone has such a huge and expensive device, so you will have to trust those that perform the experiments. If they write on their papers "The research shows..." then you instantly believe them, and try to understand their explanation.
Furthermore, I'm not really sure what exactly you're trying to show. That science is flawed because not everyone is a scientist? Science is complicated. You have to give a scientist a little credit - he probably knows what he is doing, and if he errs, it will most likely be found out by someone else (or dozens of someone elses) who knows what he is doing. I don't really know jack about pipes, but when I call a plumber, I have to believe he knows what he's doing. And lo and behold, when he sticks that wrench under the sink, it starts to work again! So my belief is justified. Therefore, while you might have to take it on faith that I, as a physical chemist, know what the heck I'm talking about when I tell you about an experiment performed on conducting polymeric materials, when I show you a working LED at the end of the day, it's pretty clear that yes, that belief and trust was justified. Do I know much about particle physics? Not really. But I know that atomic bombs work, so you'll pardon me if I take what they tell me on faith.
In essence, the belief that scientists know what they're talking about has been justified countless times by empirical results and technological progress. It is easy to believe in science and scientists because we use the products of their labor every day, even if we don't understand the underlying science. The positive fruits of religious belief are not so easily demonstrated by empirical results, are they? Again, your analogy doesn't really hold.
Quote:
1) the equipment could be hacked. It could be used to show you what they want you to see. Since you didn't build it you have no way of knowing it.
I didn't build my kitchen sink, but I know it works.
Quote:
not everyone's a physicist (or whatever is required), so everything outside your "area of expertise" is based purely on trust and beliefs on those certain researchers/scientists.
I've already shown how it's not. I repeat: particle physics is outside my area of expertise, and yet, I know that H-bombs work. I'm pretty certain electronic materials is outside of your area of expertise, and yet, I'm sure you've seen an LED. The proof is in the pudding. Unfortunately:
Quote:
In this way, religion could be considered an "area of expertise" too
Explain how it's an area of expertise, in line with the example I gave immediately above.
Quote:
As an example, assuming you do not know physics (assuming!!), you certainly should perceive physicists as priests and not scientists, or vice versa.
If a priest could show me God, then I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, all they can show me is empty platitudes and metaphores. And that's just not good enough for me.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted January 28, 2008 04:21 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 16:24, 28 Jan 2008.
|
There should be a thread stating SCIENCE is FLAWED. Does not science itself prove the eye is decieving? The plastic keyboard looks smooth, and black, but its actualy not. Even the physical appearance is different than the eye can see, the reality in itself is not as it seems for sure. You actualy THINK reality is as it would seem to the fool???
You'll all see, when that day or final hour comes. You'll see how important your life really was to you. And its not about repentance, its about forgiving yourself and others, and moving on in a more positive manner that doesnt hurt anyone, that proves that your a strong human thanks to god. You can have all the money and power in the world under the God Greed, but it will curse you in the end.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted January 28, 2008 05:34 PM |
|
|
If you think science you think that you are just atoms, just as the pc you're writing on, and that the computer actually is most empty space and would be to small for you to see if there were no empty space in it.
____________
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted January 28, 2008 09:49 PM |
|
|
Did Zan hack into Celfious's account? Seriously.
Quote:
moving on in a more positive manner that doesnt hurt anyone
Tell that to the Crusaders. And the people in Salem. And Hitler.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 29, 2008 04:37 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:42, 29 Jan 2008.
|
@mvassilev:
Quote:
I don't have to check everything.
hmm, yes you do, if you only trust evidence.
Quote:
But I know that if I looked for evidence, I would find it.
How do you know that, more precisely?
Quote:
This is different from faith, which by definition has no evidence.
Or rather, you don't want to accept any of the evidence (in fact, you like to explain it differently, well...)
Quote:
Except that you could become a physicist and study the evidence.
Not everyone becomes a physicist. You could study the evidence, but until then you're pretty much out of it. Assuming things just because they seem reasonable to you is completely a belief system, whether you like it or not, because by assuming something, no matter how you came to that conclusion, you believe in what you say. At least until evidence presents itself, in which case you have to be a physicist (in my example), but until then you believe. 
Again, since you were not a priest (at least, a "real" one), then you have absolutely no way of knowing (by evidence) whether or not becoming one will reveal you any evidence. In fact, this is more so based on experience. However, you assume (believe) that becoming a priest won't reveal to you any evidence, so you don't (obviously it would be time-consuming to re-discover everything). But then, you are still basing this on beliefs.
Beliefs are beliefs no matter how unlikely/likely something is. 
@TA:
Quote:
They aren't subjective at all.
If someone is born blind and has no possibility of seeing ever, then why should they even think about colours if they are entirely unknowable.
What's the problem with this statement? Your asking "why?" and "really?" doesn't help much at all. I could quote each one of your statements and write "really? says who?" and it wouldn't achieve much in terms of the discussion except to irritate you.
My statements were meant as jokes, because the point was subjectivity (sorry if you took it as an irritation). When you say "says who?" it could mean "Who are you to judge?" or "Who are you to decide?" or in fact an infinite such questions, however they all boil down to something, and that is they are subjective in which person makes the calls (and decides what's "wrong" with something and what's "right" with something, like e.g: "What's wrong with this logic/statement?").
Quote:
I understand the concept of subjective belief, but regardless of what either me or him believe, their either is or isn't a giant rainbow snake in the valley, from an external reference point.
How do you define an external reference point. Everything is relative, there is no such thing (in fact, there IS such a thing, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to know it, like for e.g: inside a black hole).
Quote:
So it's actually irrelevant how real it seems to him, as that doesn't affect the overall outcome.
Yes it's irrelevant how real it seems to him, but relevant how real it seems to you or perhaps 90% of the population? Yes no matter how much you like this 'popularity' it still doesn't show anything related to an external reference point, because it's all pure relative/subjective.
Here's why: if 90% of the people believed in God, then it's normal that the 10% atheists would be seen as "infidels" (in fact, they would be the aboriginal man in a sense).
if it would be reversed (as it probably is), then the religious people are seen by you as "the aboriginal man" some sorts. But either way none of these are external reference points as you can clearly see, popularity doesn't matter.
That is to say, I never said that my views are absolute and yours are relative, both are relative in fact. I understand that someone has to be wrong, not all are right (in fact, none are right), but since it's impossible to know this "External reference point" you have no way of knowing who. That is, any answer would be biased, no matter how "logical" it seems. Again, this logicalness depends on how much popular is it, not on how 'absolute' it is. And since we're all humans, we are likely to ALL be flawed.
Quote:
If the boogeyman seems 100% real to me, but isn't actually real...
like I said, you can't know that. Of course such answers claiming this always appear (from both parties), but no matter how 'probable' it seems to you or how 'popular' some thinking is, it still doesn't cut it into being "an absolute opinion" instead of a relative one.
Quote:
...that doesn't make me right, that doesn't make it subjective
When I talked about subjectivity I meant that the one who decides what's the external reference point is subjective, no matter how hard he tries. Good example of this are Black Holes. Beyond their event horizon, no information can pass, and it clearly shows that we, as a 'relative' form, cannot know that. Of course, the singularity exists, and there exists stuff inside the event horizon, but that's only from an external point of reference. Which again, cannot be known.
If 99% of the people believed there are flying chickens inside a black hole, this would have been taken as a fact and would have been taken as an external reference point because popularity speaks for this. But this would be wrong, completely.
I hope you get the idea
Quote:
It just doesn't make much sense to me to believe in something that cannot affect you.
thanks for getting the point
Quote:
Since when is it the wave/particle dualty vs god?
I wasn't talking about God, sorry if this is the wrong thread, but I thought that trying to show science is based on beliefs too had it's place in here.
Quote:
Science could be based upon slaughtering orphans and torture but that doesn't make God any more likely or appealing.
Again, I was talking about science being based on a belief -- not anything directly related to God.
Quote:
What are you suggesting?
Deny anything someone in a white coat says?
Yes, you have to take people's word for things.
But you decide which ones, it seems, because scientists are "more credible" than priests because of their 'results'.
Quote:
If you ask someone what the time is they could be lying, but they're probably not.
If you ask someone where the nearest 7/11 is and they tell you it's around the corner, it probably is. It might not be, but you're pretty safe to trust that it is.
First, this "probability" that someone is lying is subjective. What's wrong with that? Simple. As long as you do not have a formula for something such as this (don't get me wrong, I agree that asking someone where the nearest 7/11 will highly probable give a correct answer), then you're pretty much basing everything on your 'emotional', 'common sense' or other 'subjective stuff' that is strictly usually against so-called real science. You need to supply such a formula to a computer if you want to know it's objective.
Quote:
I mean, the sun might not come up tomorrow, but you have to live as if it will.
I understand your point, and that's why many people favor such "practical" thoughts. The movie Matrix explained this clearly well. Neo was confronted with the decision of choosing two pills. Depending on which pill he took, he would either live happily as he did the rest of his life (with the sun coming up tomorrow, i.e practical) or not. The basic thing is that he was put up for this decision. Different people would most surely have chosen different pills. That's why not everyone wants only the "practical" matters, but I understand if you do 
@Corribus:
Quote:
I fail to see how this is so. Clearly, science as a discipline possesses a structure that is built upon itself. In that regard, scientists will base explanations for new observations upon similar explanations to unrelated or partially related phenomena, because, obviously, it's an easy place to start. I suppose this is what you mean by science uses analogies. This is certainly a fair statement. However, to suggest that science is limited to this sort of approach is just wrong. Many great examples of scientific progress came through the proposition of theories that were quite unlike anything ever proposed before, and while these types of ideas often met with (sometimes substantial) initial resistance, given enough acquired evidence, they were ultimately accepted and hailed as successes despite not being based on "analogous" pre-existing frameworks.
Fair point, but a good example of that are Black Holes. Beyond the event horizon, no information is available, and we make theories upon analogies we have with the external Universe and it's laws. The problem is that theories that are usually "too ridiculous" (as if they are the ones to decide) are most of the times rejected, while theories which seem closer to the outside Universe are accepted as being 'real'. Though of course none of them are accepted as proofs or evidence because there simply ain't for this 'inside'.
Quote:
As it so happens, there are reasons, physical and chemical ones, to believe that carbon is the element most suited to support "life". I put life in quotations marks because I'm fairly confident that if you asked 10 people what the criteria for life are, you'd get 10 different answers. It's an important sidenote though because there are examples of inorganic systems that behave, in a manner of speaking, like living systems, and they not involve carbon or silicon. It has even been proposed by some people that such "primitive" inorganic living systems are abiogenetic precursors to organic "life" here on earth. But are they themselves alive? Good question. Are they complex living organisms? Certainly not. Nevertheless, what is a certainty is that carbon has a certain means of bonding to other carbons that is somewhat unique, and therefore really carbon is the element most suited for the basis of a whole subdiscipline of chemistry, for the generation of enormous libraries of chemical compounds required to sustain complex organisms. There is an element of analogy here, of course, when one therefore concludes that carbon is the most "likely" basis of life. But when one says as much, there is certainly no way to calculate any "probability" for this statement being true. And more importantly, while many scientists would agree that carbon is the "most likely" basis for life on some other planet, these scientists do not make such statements simply because carbon-based life is what they see here (on earth), and therefore somehow conclude illogically that so it much be elsewhere. No, they make such a conclusion because there is a scientific reason to feel that this is the case, and even so, no serious scientist, I think, would ever say that (complex) life elsewhere could NOT be based on non-carbon elements. If the bizarre menagerie of life here on earth has taught us anything, it's that life can adapt to some pretty strange circumstances.
Thanks for the clarified explanation about carbon and scientists. I'd like to comment on the last paragraph though. Yes the "bizarre menagerie of life here on earth" has taught us a lot, but in fact that's closely resembled to analogies, because we set analogies, of course, to what we know, and we know by being taught in a certain way. If we hadn't known this, we wouldn't have drawn such analogies and therefore could've assigned some kind of 99% probability of life being only carbon-based (the numbers are obviously random) instead of the current small probability (since we expect non-carbon based life because we were taught by the life here).
Quote:
I'm not sure what is all this talk about probabilities. Either there IS non-carbon life out there, or there isn't. There isn't a "chance" that there is. Nobody is evaluating such probabilities, so I'm not sure why you are trying to pretend that scientists do. Sounds like a strawman argument to me.
Sorry if it didn't make sense as it was. I tried to say that if 90% of the planets held carbon based life, when a new one would be discovered, we would assign a 90% probability (or something) that it has carbon life, instead of other life. This is because we relatively experienced only those 90% planets first, but were we to start from the other side of the Universe (so to speak), we could've assigned a 10% probability since there perhaps the carbon based lives on those other galaxies would have been rare.
not sure if this makes sense either.
Quote:
I am a scientist and perform real experiments all the time. So... where does that leave your argument?
Sorry I was talking to TA, but and intentionally picked that only as an example because I hoped he was not a physicist. Of course if some scientist coming from a particle accelerator visited this forum he would have yelled at me, but that was only to be considered an example (then, I could've put up biology examples too, for non-biologists, but it's important to understand it as an example).
I am certain that you perform experiments all the time. The problem is , however, in those that don't, like for example me. If we take an example, suppose I am an evidence-freak (in reality i'm the opposite), and that I only trust evidence. Trusting you that you perform experiments is, well, trust in this regard. And it's a belief in a certain way because I have no way of knowing this unless I travel to your country and pay a visit to see you in action, in such an example. The example I gave was similar, only that the "scientists" performing the experiment was not someone here at HC, instead it was an imaginary guy.
Quote:
And even so, let me play along for a second. I am not a particle physicist. However, I know that, if I wanted to, I could go and educate myself in particle physics, join a lab, and do these very experiments that you claim I must "trust" were done/interpreted correctly.
But then you also believe what you said in this last paragraph. You believe (or "know that") if you wanted to, you could go and educate yourself in particle physics, etc... From where? From other people of course!
Yes you would probably come to the same conclusion, but in fact there's no way of knowing this unless through experience. Exaggerated? Yes I admit it is, and time-consuming to do everything yourself. But no matter how exaggerated it seems, it's still the only way of doing it without beliefs.
Quote:
On the other hand, religious belief is not so easily circumvented. While certainly, if I am religious, I must trust and belief that Joe Priest knows what the heck he is talking about, but that is the end of the road.
As above, here you believe that even if you become a priest you will not be able to verify it yourself and therefore there is no evidence for God/religion. However as I stated this is again a belief. Without experiencing it (of course not everyone becomes priests, as I said it would be exaggerated, but it's the only way to 100% non-belief correctness though) you can't "know", only "assume". And of course you would have to become a good, real "priest" (same applies to physicists, you must become a good one, since becoming a lousy physicist will allow you to prove ridiculous things like proving 1+1=3 (if you are not good at it, that is)).
perhaps (as I didn't become one), becoming a priest will reveal some evidence, truth is we do not know, we only "doubt" that
Quote:
In fact, when Joe Physicist makes a statement about his findings, it is almost assured that John Physicist is checking up on his work prior to Joe's publication, and Mary Physicist is using Joe's results in her own work, and then there's Jack Physicist who doesn't belief Joe Physicist at all because he has his own theory, and on and on. The point being, that science is not static. Statements are not just made and accepted permanently.
Good example with that. Suppose Jack has a different theory than Joe. However, Jack cannot prove his theory as he has limited support from other people (or money). Statements are not just made and accepted permanently, like you said, but they are still accepted by other humans, which can favor something over another. In fact, let's suppose that I accept Jack's theory instead of Joe's one. This could be because:
1) I had experienced something in my life that makes me think so
2) I think different than the people who 'officially accepted' Joe's theory
When I said that I think different, I really meant different, in the regard that people have different talents. Perhaps I am right, but since the "official accepted theory" is Joe's we'll have to stick with that. However, I accepted Jack's theory (and he indeed also).
Quote:
What may be believed one moment is completely discarded the next in light of new evidence. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how this is analogous to the way the element of belief in religion works?
This "evidence" of yours is the belief actually. Like I said with the particle accelerator, all evidence *I* personally know about that anti-matter is from some the Internet (let's not complicate with other sources). The Internet is just a huge message board. Is that an evidence to ME that they performed the experiment? While I could go to them and see the stuff in action, in my last post I said a few problems here as well. Yes it could be called 'exaggeration' but in fact it's the only way. All the other actions just "assume" that a certain thing is right.
Quote:
You have to give a scientist a little credit - he probably knows what he is doing, and if he errs, it will most likely be found out by someone else (or dozens of someone elses) who knows what he is doing.
But this is trusting either 'the scientist' himself/herself or the "dozens of someone elses", which both include a trust.
Quote:
I don't really know jack about pipes, but when I call a plumber, I have to believe he knows what he's doing. And lo and behold, when he sticks that wrench under the sink, it starts to work again! So my belief is justified.
That is one good point. We trust because we see it works (practically). However, this still doesn't explain "how it works", because the plumber simply does some 'magic' (magic in the sense that you don't know). When he offers you an explanation, you would probably say it's easy (if it is), and understand it. But does it really work that way? The only way of testing this is to do it yourself, so you grab a wrench and do it. It works, so the plumber told the truth. OK, one (theory) proved, all the others to go.
Quote:
It is easy to believe in science and scientists because we use the products of their labor every day, even if we don't understand the underlying science.
Actually in this sense we do not trust 'science' but rather the 'products' themselves. You are certain that the product will behave as before (or as intended), but the "explanation" how it works (i.e science) is still a mystery. When you go to some web page and see such an explanation, you take it as a correct one. HOWEVER, it could be completely off. If an explanation was "Flying pixies make your car's engine give off energy", you would not look further because it is your belief that such a thing is silly. Whereas if it gave you some mathematical or physical reasons, you might just consider it.
The problem here is that you have no way of knowing either way. Good, you have an explanation, but is it the correct one? The only way to find this out is to build the engine yourself, and it is do-able, if you have a factory. Let's suppose you were able to do it with the physic-way rather than the pixie-way. This should be proof that it's how it works, but you really used the factory to build it, and that equipment could be hacked (or it could use pixies beyond your knowledge). The problem is that you need to go back and build the factory as well yourself (with a certain explanation). This is all to prove only that something works as it is written to work.
Of course I understand it's exaggerated and practically no one wants to do such a thing. But it does give an insight into how far one needs to go if really wants to to 100% correct and no trusting/belief at all.
Quote:
I didn't build my kitchen sink, but I know it works.
See above, are you sure it's how you think it works? You really need to build it to be 100% sure, of course if you want to do it that way. Obviously if you're happy right now with it (as most people are, including me) you don't need to go that far. It's too exaggerated but it's the only way.
Quote:
I've already shown how it's not. I repeat: particle physics is outside my area of expertise, and yet, I know that H-bombs work.
Yes of course you know H-bombs work because they, well, work. But you do not know how they work in the true sense of the word. Web pages, books or people could provide you an explanation, but how do you know the explanation is right? Suppose two people explained H-bombs to you:
1) H-bombs work by fusing Hydrogen to produce Helium, and an enormous amount of energy due to mass loss
2) H-bombs work by high-velocity atoms being split apart by a mini black hole, then sucked in and exploding (or something like that)
I'm pretty sure you know the first (simplistic) explanation, but how do you know the second one is false? After all, the 'products' themselves (ie. the bombs) only show to you that THEY DO EXPLODE, but not that hydrogen fuses or the other thing. Yes, you'll have to take and research it yourself, and eventually build it up. However, like I said before, the laboratory/factory is also essential -- you have to rely on machines to build such a thing, and machines could be hacked (e.g: you could give it an instruction to put Hydrogen, but it would maliciously actually put a black hole). Therefore in order to truly know you also have to inspect/build those things as well. Of course, again, this is an exaggeration by normal standards, but is in fact the only true and correct way of doing it.
Quote:
I'm pretty certain electronic materials is outside of your area of expertise, and yet, I'm sure you've seen an LED. The proof is in the pudding.
I know a thing about LEDs, but what I do not know is if what I know is correct or not. Truthully, all I know is pure theory, since I did not disassemble some LEDs or took a look at the particles themselves, I have to trust that explanation I found in books
Quote:
Explain how it's an area of expertise, in line with the example I gave immediately above.
Here you got me because I am not a priest to know that
-----------------
As to Celfious' post, I think he meant that our "evidence" can also simply be an illusion, because evidence is after all based on our senses. Who's to say dreams are more 'probable' to be illusions than the image perceived by the eye? After all, both these processes go through the brain. So as long as the brain can add 'illusions' in so-called dreams, maybe it adds illusions in our every day-to-day life as well. Common illusions, like evidence (i.e common for all people as a specie), is what is perceived as real, but it could be an illusion, and deciding which are illusions and which are not is again a biased thing and most likely 'subjective' (There's that word again ).
sorry if I misunderstood your point, I didn't mean to represent it, so if my point is off then you can assign it as being my point. 
but again perhaps such a discussion, especially concerning only science, is not best put up in this thread, because like TA observed, it should be about God (directly?).
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted January 29, 2008 07:14 PM |
|
|
Heres your science
Holy C that was the longest post I've seen in awhile.
Didnt someone here mention what einstien said about god?
"In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:"
By the way thats what I am, a deist.
The universe is well to organized to have no creator. Einstien believed this aswell.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2008 10:46 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 23:11, 29 Jan 2008.
|
"One of Einstein's most eagerly quoted remarks is 'Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' But Einstein also
said,
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie
which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God
and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in
me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the
structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Richard Dawkins : The God Delusion
Celfious, from what source did you take your excerpt from? Oh yes, you took it from www.godandscience.com. -Evidence for God from Science. ROLFLOL! And it is only on the same page that he claims "science is flawed" Rolflol again.
@The death.
Man I rarely find a guy as skeptical as you. Man you donīt believe in anything. Not in science, not that the sun will rise tomorrow, not that the plummer will do its job without pixies... A true skeptic! Oh no, wait! But no, it canīt be! You stop that skepticism immediately to the question of God. That you take as a sure thing. Rolflol once again, even though it is much hurt by tautology by now.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 12:29 AM |
|
|
Minion Einstien believed in god reguardless of his original convictions. He said the Universe is to well organized to be with no creator..
Secondly I dont find anything funny about it but maybe we just dont share the same sense of humor lol.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 12:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't have to check everything.
hmm, yes you do, if you only trust evidence.
If I looked for evidence, I would find it.
Quote:
Quote:
But I know that if I looked for evidence, I would find it.
How do you know that, more precisely?
It's called extrapolation from what I know. What I observe in daily life is described by the laws of physics.
Quote:
Quote:
This is different from faith, which by definition has no evidence.
Or rather, you don't want to accept any of the evidence (in fact, you like to explain it differently, well...)
But isn't faith accepting something without evidence? And aren't religions based on the concept of faith? So all the people that are trying to "prove" religion are contradicting themselves.
Quote:
Quote:
Except that you could become a physicist and study the evidence.
Not everyone becomes a physicist. You could study the evidence, but until then you're pretty much out of it. Assuming things just because they seem reasonable to you is completely a belief system, whether you like it or not, because by assuming something, no matter how you came to that conclusion, you believe in what you say. At least until evidence presents itself, in which case you have to be a physicist (in my example), but until then you believe.
You observe what happens in your life. Then you want to find out why things happen that way. You are presented with 2 explanations:
1. Most everything is accurately explained by the laws of physics.
2. Flying ressurecting beard man (whom no one has ever observed) is causing everything.
Clearly, the first explanation is more reasonable, since it doesn't make assumptions.
Priests study religious texts written by men. There is no evidence for what is in those texts to be true.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 01:21 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 01:23, 30 Jan 2008.
|
Quote:
Minion Einstien believed in god reguardless of his original convictions. He said the Universe is to well organized to be with no creator..
Secondly I dont find anything funny about it but maybe we just dont share the same sense of humor lol.
Yes, you really need to give me reference, where you get that information. Were you a friend of his to know all this? And I wasnīt laughing on Einstein or his statements. The thing I found amusing is that you cite a phrase from a page that tries to prove god with science, when in fact you had earlier stated that science is flawed. But true enough, we may not share the same sense of humor, lol .
|
|
taplo
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 01:25 AM |
|
|
You observe what happens in your life. Then you want to find out why things happen that way. You are presented with 2 explanations:
1. Most everything is accurately explained by the laws of physics.
2. Flying ressurecting beard man (whom no one has ever observed) is causing everything.
Thats just a bad diversion as neither of them exclude the other.
____________
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 03:44 AM |
|
|
How would you punctuate the sentance
"Woman without her man is nothing."?
Some would say
"Woman, without her man, is nothing."
Alternatively:
"Woman: without her, man is nothing."
The original Bible in was written in Hebrew, which has no grammer.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 04:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Thats just a bad diversion as neither of them exclude the other.
Science explains how things behave and how life came to be. Religion explains how things behave and how life came to be. They describe it differently.
Quote:
The original Bible in was written in Hebrew, which has no grammer.
Since when does Hebrew not have grammar?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 05:26 AM |
|
|
Those little dots are frustrating. But theyre not from the bible. I believe it does in fact have its own grammar. But its mostly for singing you see. And even then im not sure its from the original bible.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 05:48 AM |
|
|
Sorry, I meant that the bible had no grammer.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 09:56 AM |
|
|
@TA:
Quote:
Quote:
I understand the concept of subjective belief, but regardless of what either me or him believe, their either is or isn't a giant rainbow snake in the valley, from an external reference point.
How do you define an external reference point. Everything is relative, there is no such thing (in fact, there IS such a thing, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to know it, like for e.g: inside a black hole).
I don't mean to argue the details of an external reference point, I'm simply saying that independent of mine or your beliefs there either is a god or there isn't. Believing in god doesn't create nor destroy him, and as such what someone believes is irrelevant to the question of god's existence.
Quote:
Here's why: if 90% of the people believed in God, then it's normal that the 10% atheists would be seen as "infidels" (in fact, they would be the aboriginal man in a sense).
if it would be reversed (as it probably is), then the religious people are seen by you as "the aboriginal man" some sorts. But either way none of these are external reference points as you can clearly see, popularity doesn't matter.
Actually atheists only make up around 2.3% (non-religious around 11.9) according to the Encyclopedia Britannica survey of 2005. How accurate you think this is is up to you but it shows that it's definately not 90% atheists
Quote:
If 99% of the people believed there are flying chickens inside a black hole, this would have been taken as a fact and would have been taken as an external reference point because popularity speaks for this. But this would be wrong, completely.
Not technically. Facts are based on evidence and observation.
If 99%, no, 100% of people believed in god he still wouldn't be a fact. Then it wouldn't be believing, it wouldn't be faith..
Quote:
That is to say, I never said that my views are absolute and yours are relative, both are relative in fact. I understand that someone has to be wrong, not all are right (in fact, none are right), but since it's impossible to know this "External reference point" you have no way of knowing who. That is, any answer would be biased, no matter how "logical" it seems. Again, this logicalness depends on how much popular is it, not on how 'absolute' it is. And since we're all humans, we are likely to ALL be flawed.
Well I guess that's what it boils down to: the end of our discussion.
You find it logical to believe in something entirely unknowable without any reason to believe you're right. Not believe in everything, however, as some things like the boogeyman aren't to your liking, but others such as a god are.
I, on the other hand, don't find it logical to believe in anything entirely unknowable that cannot affect me, that is supported by absolutely no evidence.
(And no I don't want to go back to the "evidence is evil" argument )
Thanks for the discussion.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 10:10 AM |
|
|
@Celfious
Quote:
Minion Einstien believed in god reguardless of his original convictions. He said the Universe is to well organized to be with no creator..
Quite the opposite..
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
-Albert Einstein
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 12:11 PM |
|
Edited by SirDunco at 12:12, 30 Jan 2008.
|
A personal God, as I understand is the personified, anthropological view of a human-like god. That does not mean that there is no "creator"... but then the creator probably had to be created by some other force. But that's another question...
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 02:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, I meant that the bible had no grammer.
The Bible was written in Hebrew. Hebrew has grammar. Therefore, the Bible had grammar.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
mamgaeater
Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 02:41 PM |
|
|
logic is the enemy of faith.
Logic is responsible for many great advances and the church tried to stop these advances.
logic is reason and evidence suffices our existence.
we have evidence that our neighbor exists so we put faith in the idea of his existence.
it is like gambling.
logic is placing bets wisely and faith is the luck of the draw.
i myself have faith in god and no notion or word can suppress that.
faith is hope.
faith is illogical.
trust is an essential skill yet it also is illogical to trust the stranger on the street.
giving a second chance is again a matter of trust sometimes it is betrayed sometimes it is respected.
faith is love and hope and trust.
it is illogical.
Modern day earth favors logic and reason.
Look at our laws they try to be 100% just.
look at our life do we ever lend 300$ to a random man in need?
no the chances of never being paid back are too low.
a blind man does not need to beleive in colors and has no reason to beleive. but if one day he could see... it changes the perspective.
people like to be secure.
faith is illogical.
hope is illogical.
trust is illogical.
hoping is a faithfulness.
Our certainties could change at any moment and we dislike that notion of not being 100% correct. we rarely are 100% correct but we like to beleive that.
our expertise is based on our confidence and faith.
Logic is 100% faith is everything else.
just my two cents
____________
Protection From Everything.
dota
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
