|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted October 15, 2007 07:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No that's not what I mean at all by credibility. Credible scientific work refers to experiments done by people trained in the sciences by reputable universities, funded by unbiased sources, and published in journals that are subjected to a thorough review process by a diverse selection of the scientific community. Experiments published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, performed by John Smith, Professor of Science at Harvard University, funded by the National Institutes of Health, would be an example of a credible piece of work. Experiments published on myspace.com by John Smith, high school dropout, in his garage would not be an example of a credible piece of work. That's not to say a high school dropout couldn't come up with amazing piece of science in his garage - people have done it before - but that work would still have to be subjected to a controlled laboratory setting before it would be accepted by the scientific community.
This sounds a lot like those who say "the Pope is superior" as well. For the record, I usually don't judge people by some papers.  and you shouldn't take anyone's word if you're looking after real science, not even some super-scientist explaining you some theory you do not understand, for example
Quote:
No, that's not what I mean at all by reproducibility. Reproducibility means that an experimental result is only good if it can be reproduced by someone else using the exact same conditions.
Yes I know.
BUT however, why should he be able to do it? How do you know that things are reproducible? Of course, you observe simple things, like gravity, that are reproducible, but where is the proof that says or demonstrates that it should be reproducible?
Quote:
Trust ME, that's the way science is done. If an experiment is done well and the conditions well-documented - hallmarks of a well-designed experiments - another scientist should be able to reproduce the result. Scientists will not accept a conclusion based on an experiment that is not reproducible, and nor should they.
Yes I agree. My point/question was: how do you know things are always reproducible? Isn't this actually an assumption and not a proof?
Quote:
No, I think you need to start with the assumption that any macroscopic event, in principle, is reproducible IF the conditions are replicated exactly. That of course says nothing about the practicality of reproduction. Also, that flies out the window on the quantum level, but when it comes to macroscopic levels, which are essentially just statistical averages of immense numbers of quantum events, then reproducibility is a fundamental characteristic of the universe.
But this isn't a proof, it's just a simple observation. And since science is based on proof, then it shouldn't assume everything is reproducible (that is, if it's 100% based only on proof).
Quote:
What if elephants sprouted wings and started speaking Ancient Greek? You can get lost is philosophical conjecture if you want, but what's the point? The scientist must limit his "what if's" to the range of things that he has reason to believe in.
Define what are the reasons.. why is "elephant sprouted wings ..." scenario illogical or childish? Like I said, scientists "limit" these "what if's" using their own common sense, but that is not proof, because I, for example, might have a different sense to see things from a different perspective (i.e not 'common' sense because it's subjective).
Quote:
Scientists cannot, and must prioritize their time, and to do that, they must logically choose their avenues of travel based on available data, not based on baseless suppositions and mere whim. I'm sorry if you don't like that aspect of science, but that's just the way it works.
This 'logically choice' is not based on proof, since it's what scientist use to prove things. Person A might have a different logic than person B.
Quote:
I disagree with your definition of evidence. While often the product of what we perceive, evidence is that which allows us to make a logical connection between two things. Evidence does not consistitute proof. Usually evidence IS in the form of things we can see or hear, but it doesn't have to be. The sound of footsteps is evidence of someone else in the room, but that evidence exists whether you can hear it or not.
Yes, sorry, I never actually thought evidence and proof are two things; then I mean proof, not evidence. 
Quote:
Light's existence can be easily demonstrated without seeing it. A simple example is that sitting in a sunny room will make you feel warm. There are also a wide range of electronic detectors that will detect light. They could be interfaced with a speaker which clicks every time a photon is incident on the detector. Now you can "hear" light and thus perceive light without seeing it. As for colors, you can just take the same example and have the detector only sense light of specific wavelengths.
What was your point?
That's the problem, because IR is still light. But now, what if you had only ears and no other sense (so you wouldn't sense heat). Yes you could use some electronic detector to detect light, however if you don't even know it exists, how would you be able to use the detector, not to mention to build it.
Quote:
Addressed in two points:
(1) A scientist would not dismiss a piece of data just because he cannot directly comprehend it. I work with IR and UV laser light all the time. I can see neither, yet I know they are there. Ultrasounds are used by radiologists all the time in medicine ,even though I'm pretty sure nobody can hear ultrasonic sound. The reason a scientist doesn't dismiss these things that his brain cannot directly interpret is because there's plenty of other evidence that they exist. Ghosts are another matter.
Well, for me, comprehension and sensing are two different things. When I talk about comprehending something, I usually mean 'understanding' it to it's deepest points/details. I'm sorry if that's not the right word to use then.
Quote:
(2) Actually, some people CAN "hear colors". They have a condition called synesthesia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
But what about a human with 0 senses (i.e 'dead' so to speak)? 
Quote:
I never said I did. In fact, my contention all along is that you can't. Now, my question to you is: since you can't "feel" supernatural things, why would you expect science to have anything to say about it? All these ID wackos trying to make a scientific theory out of creationism - maybe you should direct your comments to THEM. So when Mytical asks, "well why don't you consider the possibility that there is a supernatural explanation to such and such", my reply is: why would I? I'm a scientist and science will NEVER be able to consider such a possibility. I'm certainly not going to dump evolution for a random conjecture that science will never be able to prove one way or the other.
I wasn't directing it to you btw, I was talking in general
Quote:
Give me a reason to think otherwise. By your own statements above, you cannot. So your suggestion is that I should just dump science and reason and go with whatever supernatural explanation I like the best, even though my senses (science) will never be able to confirm or deny that explanation, even though I will never actually learn anything real about my world?
Well you won't actually learn anything 'real' about the world, but only minor "effects" that you observe with your 5 senses (no matter how). I never said scientists should not learn the effects of what you cannot see (i.e gravity), but when someone says the fairy stuff you shouldn't say "You're wrong, gravity is just a field" because you're both wrong (by probability, 99.9% chances that you're both wrong).
Quote:
I don't see how you would be satisfied with that sort of passive, boring existence. How can people be so uninterested in learning about the Universe?
Depends on what you call 'learning' about the Universe. It is a fascinating world but complex. But I understand that I will never have answers to my deep questions. Sometimes, it makes me wonder, a lot. Not because I don't want to observe the effects of the things surrounding me, but try to think from an 'outside' world perspective: for example, how would a world without time be like? the world is a mysterious place and I myself have experienced a lot of 'weird' things by "normal" standards.
Quote:
There's no evidence for gravitational fields? :confused:
Where's the evidence showing that gravity are fields and not some sort of attraction by Ghosts? As far as I'm concerned, there could as well be Ghosts coming from each mass and pulling you to them. (i know it sounds silly, but it's just an example).
I think you have confused gravitation fields with the effects of gravity. Yes, of course there's proof for gravity effects; but how does it 'look' like actually? We imagine them as infinite 'lines' and fields, but this has actually no proof. The 'field' idea is just an idea. We only observe the effects of gravity, not the 'real' part that pulls.
Quote:
The difference between monkeys and theists with respect complex scientific theories is that monkeys have not been equipped through evolution to comprehend them.
I was talking more about the monkeys being "us", everyone. And let's say some aliens came and tried to prove us that ALL our theories were false. Yet we couldn't understand what they tried to say (even if they spoke in english) because we couldn't comprehend that.
Quote:
As such, adopting any of these "solutions" to the gravity problem will NEVER lead to enlightment or real knowledge.
Seriously, that depends on what you mean by 'real' knowledge. I understand most people are happy with what 'affects' them, and all other things are irrelevant if they never have impact on their lives (for example, it would be pointless to think of a parallel plane that will never impact your life). But my definition of knowledge is different
Quote:
If I adopted fairies as my explanation to gravity, what would I have learned? Could I really feel CONFIDENT in my understanding of reality? Could I get EXCITED about learning more about gravity?
Well, if you're like me (not talking about religion!) then knowing that would make you indeed feel 'better' so to speak.
Quote:
When the world was dominated by the Church, which dictated ruthlessly what everyone had to believe about the world, why do you think it conincided with a millenia of stagnation of scientific and technological progess? Because such groundless (empirically speaking, of course) beliefs are dead-ends. Where do you go after "fairies"? There's no more research to be done, no learning to be had. Certainly the "theory" makes no predictions that can be tested to give you confidence that your view of the universe is the correct one.
Well partly I agree about the Church sometimes manipulating or corrupting the Bible, etc..
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2007 09:23 PM |
|
|
Gravity
I think you misunderstand each other. What Corribus refers to as "gravitational field" is what you call "effects of gravity". The gravitational field just models how gravitational effects work; it does not explain what gravity really is. It's just a formula involving the masses of the relevant objects, the distance between their mass centres and a constant to make the units match. It is an invention by man that happens to fit very well with what we observe and allows us to make predictions, and therefore we call it a law of nature. It answers the question "how", but not "why". Perhaps a faerie is doing all the pulling, but that is irrelavant: If we believe in the 'Faerie of Gravity' so to speak it ends there: we do not learn more about gravity or related subjects. Perhaps one would find such an faerie-explanation comforting, but nothing comes from it so what's the difference.
You could study the general theory of relativity if you want to understand the concept of gravity better. That I can't help you with.
Reproducible experiments
Obviously, reproducing an experiment 100% is not possible. It's a rather philosophical discussion; one might say that we can partly reproduce an experiment and that we may even do so well that we may expect the results to be nearly the same. You could also claim that reproducing an experiment is entirely absurd, like "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." (Heraclitus).
But if you refuse the idea of reproducibility what can you ever hope to say about the world we live in? If an experiment can't be reproduced it would be worthless since we would always be measuring something new.
It's not a matter of whether it is possible or not. Reproducibility is just a rule of the game (i.e. science) we play that you have to accept.
That two experiments carried out in a similar way under similar conditions have similar results sounds reasonable. You could always say that similar results could be attributed to chance. But then again: that is irrelevant to a scientist. Whether your claim is right or wrong is a philosophical question. The point is that we observe the similarities and are capable of formulating laws that allow us to make predictions.
Quote:
But what about a human with 0 senses (i.e 'dead' so to speak)?
He would have to become a mathematician 
You need to understand the rules of science. It's about describing (and understanding you might add) the world we are able to perceive. Faeries and purple elephants are beyond the scope.
Okay, this post became longer than I had intended. I recommend that you reread the excellent post Corribus made.
____________
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 16, 2007 04:24 AM |
|
|
|
Corribus is right about science, and he's right about theists refusing to belive in evolution due to the implications. A world without any sort of accountibility or hope for the future is what that world is.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 17, 2007 08:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But it still has a small chance so there's just saying that A is more likely isn't proof for A.
It has a chance of happening in the same way that anything has a chance of happening, sure. 
I don't see the point of your post other than to say that nothing is, in turn, real, and that all science is tomfoolery. I mean, really. You're trying to prove god by trying to discount science altogether. I mean, if that's the way you want to look at it, everything is subjective and nothing is definate, but that way lies despair. Taking that into account nothing would have amounted from anything and we could all just wallow in our nothingness for all eternity. We have to assume some things, for example, we do exist (self aware) etc. in order to build the plane or predict the effects of gravity. Sure, gravity could suddenly change one day and shoot us all up. But we have to assume it won't in order to keep going.
That is science. If you don't trust it, then don't use any technology for the rest of your life. Science isn't the enemy of God. It's the enemy of lies.
Or maybe we should incorporate the fact that it could be fairies pulling us down constantly because there is no proof against it, in everything we do.
What people refuse to understand is that you don't need to prove something doesn't exist, you need to prove it does.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2007 03:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
we could all just wallow in our nothingness for all eternity.
Ironic an atheist says something like this to bash a theist. TA what happens when you die?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 17, 2007 03:56 PM |
|
|
Quote by Shadey:
Quote:
TA what happens when you die?
Quote by TA:
Quote:
But now I realize that there is no heaven and hell. There is no afterlife. But I don't care, because once I'm dead, it's not like you're going to be sitting there in some eternal blackness going "Well this sucks, there is no afterlife..". You won't be thinking anything at all.
And we're back at the beginning!  I just love endless circular discussions.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted October 17, 2007 04:16 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 16:20, 17 Oct 2007.
|
Fully scientific point of view on religion&co:
God(s) either exists or not.
Science is unable to neither prove nor defy it's existence and so it will remain forever.
People are doomed to believe either way(theists&deists vs atheists), or not to care about the matter at all(agnostics).
Period.
From a bit different side, there is an entity(ies) that caused all other entities in reality to happen. The question is, whether it(they) has(have) consciousness and will, or not?
Everyone has to answer this question oneself, (un?)fortunatelly.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2007 05:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote by Shadey:
Quote:
TA what happens when you die?
Quote by TA:
Quote:
But now I realize that there is no heaven and hell. There is no afterlife. But I don't care, because once I'm dead, it's not like you're going to be sitting there in some eternal blackness going "Well this sucks, there is no afterlife..". You won't be thinking anything at all.
And we're back at the beginning! I just love endless circular discussions.
I guess I'm missing the motive for TA's involvment in this thread. Kinda seems silly to spend a large amount of your time endlessly arguing over the existance of something that you don't care about. Perhaps in reality TA knows that God exists but would rather spend his life warring against the notion.
Whatever makes people sleep better at night I suppose. Personally I sleep better believing that I can be joyful in this life and the afterlife.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 17, 2007 06:40 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:41, 17 Oct 2007.
|
Quote:
Kinda seems silly to spend a large amount of your time endlessly arguing over the existance of something that you don't care about.
Not believing in something is not the same thing as not caring about its impact on society. Whether or not God exists, the IDEA of God certainly impacts my life.
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2007 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Kinda seems silly to spend a large amount of your time endlessly arguing over the existance of something that you don't care about.
Not believing in something is not the same thing as not caring about its impact on society. Whether or not God exists, the IDEA of God certainly impacts my life.
I don't believe that. What you really feel is that people who believe God exists use that to implement policies that support their agenda whether it's selfish or charitable. From the supporting evidence of your statements in this thread it's not that you care about the idea of God. It's what people do with the idea of God.
The bottom line is that people are always to blame, not the idea.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 18, 2007 01:09 PM |
|
|
Baklava I kinda think that was a rhetorical question.
And I don't see why people get so defensive about a debate.
Does god exist? It would be cool if he did.
It would be cool if dragons existed too.
In fact, one could say it makes them sleep better at night knowing theres loads of cool dragons out there and pray every night so that one day they might go see them!
But I just think that because something is a good idea doesn't make it true.
And I completely disagree with the fact that the people are to blame. It's not just politics, it's not just the corrupt church (which has survived through countless generations), it's the simple fact that religion poisons everything, from the young to the old, instilling false values and manipulating our society like Peter Hamilton's Starflyer.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 20, 2007 10:27 AM |
|
|
Science isn't the opposite of religion though, so that statement isn't really relevant. Atheists aren't accountable for science, nor are they scientists (unless through coincidence). If religion was the polar opposite to science then being religious would be even more foolish.
So the statement science is responsible for the deaths caused by atom bomb doesn't really apply. Oswald is responsible for JFK's death. A stingray is responsible for Steve Irwins death. Or maybe not.
It's not about playing the name game.
It's simply stating the fact that if there were no religion, there would be no religious wars.
Anyone who says that's a bad thing, well... not much I have to say to you. Go shoot someone.
And the morals of the bible (well, namely the commandments, the rest is pretty much morally bankrupt) are a poor attempt at grasping what is 'good' anyway. You don't have to worship someone in the sky to follow those principles (the reasonable ones anyway, who cares about the sabbath or false idols), in fact, you don't need to believe to even know of them. There was such thing as being honest and faithful before Moses came down from the mountain
So these nice sounding rules to live your life by obviously aren't the reason for religious beliefs, because that renders the bible just as useful as any other book telling people to be "nice".
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 20, 2007 04:17 PM |
|
|
I thought you said that it was the people that were accountable and not the religion, in which case that statement is a non-event.
But the point I'm trying to make is that the church isn't a vital part in the good doing. Probably those are good people with a giving nature, in which case taking religion out of the equation wouldn't make them stop (so religion is unnecessary in that situation and so should be ignored), or else they are selfish and doing it just to get to heaven 
And you didn't say nuclear science before. You said all science. Which is fair enough because one leads to another. But it doesn't matter seeing as science is irrelevant in the discussion (it's not opposed to religion) We might as well be talking about if the Basketball should exist
You are right though, without science there would be some fewer deaths. I don't need to defend it because this isn't a game and I'm not on a side called "Science"
The difference is that science is the vital component in many things that bring a great benefit to our society (arguably IS our society). Maybe to prevent those deaths all forms of technology and free thinking should be eradicated. Maybe not. Maybe some people need to die as humanity progresses, whether or not that is a good thing.
But religion adds nothing and brings only things detrimental to society.
The only instance I can think of where religion can help is that someone in a deluded state of mind feels happier because they think that they will float on clouds when they die.
In that case, good luck to them.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 20, 2007 04:28 PM |
|
|
@Mytical
Aside from those that TA alluded to, there's another great flaw in your analogy. And that is: While most (dare I say, all) scientists are aware of the serious potential danger that lurks within the process of scientific discovery, most religious people deny that religion is anything but infinitely beneficial.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 21, 2007 06:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Science does not need to prove anything, there is no 'proof' in science.
Religion has to prove what they think is correct.
lol. By saying there is no proof in science is merely saying that you cannot "prove" anything, other than 1+1=2 etc.
There is no EVIDENCE for religion.
Quote:
Somebody who makes something (ie like the atomic bomb) is not responsible for its use.
Religion is responsible when somebody twists it and hurts somebody.
Read the above post. Yes, the person who made the atom bomb IS responsible for it's use. No one denied that. The person who made ecstasy is responsible for it's use. The person who made the sniper rifle is responsible for it's use. Nothing to do with religion though.
Religion is just another one of those bad things, which helps nobody.
Quote:
Oh and if you must know religion is responsible for a great achievement. Maybe not solely, but it did advance it to a great degree. That is the written language. Now I know people argue that for a long time that certain religions that will go unnamed tried to keep people from learning to write and read..lets leave discussion to historians. However, in order that the lessons of their various religions to get recorded to be passed down religions did encourage the prolifiation of the written word.
Religion advanced the written language? Come on. In the same way that a graffiti artist writing on your fence is advocating english, or buying a porno mag is encouraging literature. That's not religion that's advancing the written language. It's the act of writing. (and they did have writing before the Bible...)
Quote:
Now I agree that there are some negative connotations with religion. Most of them, however, can be traced back to how it was translated by a sect of people. If you think that everybody who is religious is not concerned about how it is used, you are mistaken.
Yep. Take religion out of the equation none of that would have happened. I don't see how you are failing to grasp that point.
Imagine there's no heaven
Quote:
No bloodshed should ever be done in the name of a religion. It is horrible that people do use it as an excuse. That is all it is though, an excuse. If religion was never created, it is my firm belief that these same people would use race, politics, or any of a number of reasons to do the exact same thing. People too often look for scapegoats.
No one is saying that there would be no wars without religion. What I'm saying is that there are instances where religion is solely responsible for a death. Even if it's just one, that's enough. If you think that there would have been the crusades or 9/11 or the riots over Mohammad if there was no religion, then we disagree and there's not much more to say.
Quote:
Is there things that I don't like about religion. Absolutely. Especially the part where they say "You have to believe this way, and call me this name." That does not mean that religion should never have exsisted. If everything I have a problem with did not exsist..we'd be in a heap of trouble let me tell you.
If religion didn't exist, what kind of trouble would we be in?
Too many people with free time on a Sunday?
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted October 21, 2007 08:38 AM |
|
|
Well if i can think of one thing right now its maybe that science causes deaths. but its mostly religion that causes people to hate each other. or at least an excuse to.Anyway we wouldnt have lived as a species without science at some point. think of all those plagues that may have still been around.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 21, 2007 08:55 AM |
|
|
The very toolmaking that made us evolve into what we are now is science. We would never have become sentient..
Oh, forgot, that's a touchy subject
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2007 04:04 PM |
|
|
TA to blame religion for evil-doing of humanity is just down right ignorant.
The bottome line is that you hate the idea of God and religion because you feel it has slighted you somehow. How, when, and by whom is anyone's guess. Don't expect reasonable people to believe that religion is a bad thing. What would be the motive for anyone to act in a manner that isn't completely selfish. The primary reason ANY charitable organization exists is because of religious groups. The evidence is in the actions of the people you so despise.
I challenge you. What charitable things have you ever done with your life? Don't come here spouting how you think religion is ruining the world when you're doing nothing but draining it's resources and happily gorging yourself without giving back. It makes me sick to hear complacent, selfish, so-called intellectuals bash people who sacrifice so much time, effort, and money to make a positive effect on the world around them.
You too Coribus what have you ever done that makes religion irrelevant?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 21, 2007 07:08 PM |
|
|
|
I think that wins my vote for worst post ever.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted October 21, 2007 11:49 PM |
|
|
I am atheist, and think that religion is some kind of pathetic crap we could be better without... but I have a question; what makes you religious people out there (this is mostly about those who are very into it) use great parts of your life to worship something you don't know for sure exist. You must be very disappointed when you find out that "Hey, there's no one here to give me the best of all." How is it possible to believe in something you can't see, hear or feel, that there's no proof that exists?
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
