Naked Science Forum

General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Tronix on 08/03/2005 15:51:54

Title: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Tronix on 08/03/2005 15:51:54
Ever since Copernicus put the earth in orbit of the sun, religion and science have seemed to be at odds. One defines the world through faith in the general nature of things, a blind jump into the unknown with eyes closed, courage full, and heart open and sure. The other proceeds through the world with open eyes and a questioning mind, seeing through its own eyes what happens in the world and using what he or she knows already for sure and imagination to make sense out of it all, a light in the darkness of the unknown making all things clear one solved mystery at a time, and assuming nothing.

These two forces of society and humanity seem to be at odds. Current Science is loathe to accept even the possibilty of the possiblity of spirits, magic, mythic creatures, gods, and all things it cannot see or prove easily, where as religion is willing to throw all logic and observation out the window, chalking the movement of all things up to the fickle whims of an invisble entity of mysterious power, questoning nothing.

but this are only my assumptions really. i want to know how the two really see eachother. my girfriend is a faithful wiccan, and has told me of her encounters with the supernatural and strange and magical. And i believe her, and at least in the possiblity of things beyond our kening, beyond our laws of physics. And at the same time, she embraces my path of knowledge, eating up my unentertaining lectures on the nature of living things and tolerating, no, encouraging my insatiable hunger for understanding and knowledge. And i wonder, in our lives will we be punished for our partnership. Will i be called crackpot for my search for the supernatural side of life, and will she be shunned becuase of her fratranization will a logically minded faithless scientist, whom must have proof and reason for everything.

Anyone else wonder what i wonder? Whom here has religion in there lives wheter Christian, Buddhist, or Wiccan, or whatever, from you, parents co-workers, or girlfriends. Anyone have "faith" in a theory, conviction in a method, courage in a question (or an answer?)

But the real question is, What do you believe in and what do you know without proof, and how does this co-exsist with what you know, and what you question and wonder at?

Important quotes from important people

"Hey my chocolate bar melted!" Percy L. Spencer
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Ultima on 08/03/2005 18:38:55
quote:
the real question is, What do you believe in, what do you know without proof, and how do is co-exsist with what you know, and what you question?


The following is “Ultima on Religion:” WARNING RANT!!![:D]

I might save this for the next time someone asks “so erm, what faith are you?????”

Question everything, take nothing for granted. Only personal belief is important, what anyone else thinks is great but you don't have to conform (i.e. I’m against large organized monolithic religeons, which rely heavily on blind faith). You can be spiritual without taking everything literally, humans are an emotional animal; as such we have the power of imagination... I can easily imagine a world full of fanciful creatures that can be related to how I perceive the real world (In fact I often think this way for working out complex algorithms in computer science); but that doesn't make them exist. Take how the East lean towards mysticism, and they often believe some one who has accomplished much in life becomes a god in death, that’s more of a social function of remembrance and celebration for that person than the literal idea that they are a “God”. Spirituality and Religion are definitely separate things. I look at nature around me and can’t help but feel in awe of its beauty. That doesn’t mean that because it’s so beautiful I must credit that to some all powerful super being, that for some inane reason also takes a personal interest in everything everyone does. I also have more confidence in myself and other people to inherently know the right thing to do morally, and not rely on being spoon fed some gibberish that’s been rehashed and regurgitated for several thousand years. The biggest thing I wonder about is how people don’t realize they yearn for the freedom of personal belief, take Christianity there are so many flavors of it the mind boggles, everyone jarring to be heard over the other to be more correct in the interpretation of the bible. Why can’t everyone believe what they want and accept everyone else is going to do the same? I think you will find the world would be a happier place. Science to has people taking various stances at different times, the difference is that everyone is heard and their views considered and the most feasible and provable model is chosen, if something doesn’t fit its amended or totally redone. Not dragged on for centuries with no growth or change to fit society.

The anger in my writing comes from narrow minded people constantly telling me I’m evil for not jumping to the nearest religion at hand. I was once told by a Greek Orthodox lady that I was going to HELL because my parents did not have me christened (They were refused by the church because they didn’t attend), I was about seven years old at the time. Another great example recently was when a gang of young Jehovah’s Witnesses (Two girls my age with young children) knocked on my door and talked to me for about 45minutes about what they believed and what I thought. They quoted scripture and told me what they thought it meant. I didn’t have the heart to tell them I pretty much believe the opposite to what they wanted to hear; considering I give blood and want my organs harvested on my death. They went into detail of how we are now in “THE END OF DAYS” and that I had better sign up sharpish otherwise Jehovah will personally come down and smite me for not conforming, banishing me to hell and giving everyone else heaven on Earth. Heaven on Earth I gather from the pamphlet center fold that they gave me, is set in the Alps where only white blond hared people are allowed… hmmm sounds familiar some how. I just nodded lots and said “yeah that sounds great” hoping they wouldn’t catch on, luckily they didn’t. I now kind of wonder what they would have been like if I came to their door trying to persuade them their whole life is a sham and they MUST believe what I believe. I don’t think they would have said “yeah that sounds great”. If anyone here is a devout JW don’t hesitate to debate this with me, I’m always open to hearing about someone’s religion and belief system, just don’t expect me to take it to heart. Plus why is it that I know a fair bit about various religions but lots of people with “faith” don’t bother to delve into science or even other faiths, are they that scared that their faith will be shattered that easily???

In conclusion I have learned from experience that most religion is about: guilt, fear (mostly about death), and wanting to “fit in” where there is no obvious justification for existing. My theory is: WHO CARES!!! You die because living forever means that people couldn’t be born, who would deny a baby a life? Who wants to live forever? Why fit in, be as outlandish as you like so long as you don’t harm anyone. AND WHY OH WHY make people take on the guilt of something that possibly happened over 2000 years ago, or the guilt of not conforming and making them doubt themselves with scare tactics such as hell or a “soulless” wandering in death.

http://www.pantheism.net/

LOL that went on for ages [:D]


wOw the world spins?
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: IAmAI on 08/03/2005 20:24:02
I used to be a Christian. I think the reason why was something Ultima mentions: "Only personal belief is important, what anyone else thinks is great but you don't have to conform...". I was brought up in a Christian family and I was simply too young to make my own observations and make my own decisions about reality. Basically, I trusted my Christian family and friends. But (I realise this more on reflection) something didn't seem right: Although I enjoyed going to church, meeting up with my Christian friends, I rarely felt motivated to read the Bible and pray, like I was supposed to as a Christian. I rarely 'felt' God like lots of Christians claim to have done, and the times when I felt like I did, it was probably my own emotions rather than any supernaturally induced feeling.

About 4 years ago, when I started Sixth form, I started using the Internet more. Actually, I used the Internet a fair bit prior, but it doesn’t really matter. I started playing the video game, Deus Ex. It was so good I thought I would check out a forum. I started posting on Forum Planet’s forum, Planet Deus Ex (http://www.forumplanet.com/planetdeusex/) and soon became part of the community there. Amongst the discussions about the game, there were ones like this one; people discussion religion. I found such discussions very interesting, and I contributed as a Christian… at first. I gained a taste for these kinds of discussions and often participated when I could. I believe the discussions inspired me to become a broader, more opened minded, more objective thinker. I started applying thought to my own beliefs and not just those of other people, not assuming them futile without good reason (as some believers don’t). I eventually came to the conclusion that the possibility of God (or a god of any kind) not existing (and everything that goes with it), is feasible. Although, still believed the opposite (that God could exist – and I still do so, currently), nothing was certain and so I felt could no longer be a Christian.

Now I take things just as Ultima suggests: Assume nothing and question everything – I believe there’s nothing to lose doing that, as long as you’re prepared think about things, and I enjoy doing so. I hope one day that perhaps I will be able to come to some kind of conclusion of my own, regarding what origins of the universe and whether there is more to our tangible existence, based on logic and reason, using evidence as the substance for the reasoning, rather than assuming or wishing for anything. If I don’t, if it is impossible to do that, I shall still remain the open minded, objective thinker that I now am.

Thanks to Ultima for pointing out the thread. Hope he finds this interesting.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Ultima on 08/03/2005 20:41:30
Welcome to the forum IAmAI. Or should I say Dan from the same Uni as me [;)]

It's good to hear that not everyone with a religious background takes everything purely on faith.


wOw the world spins?
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: gsmollin on 09/03/2005 11:04:25
In religion, the basic tenents are taken as articles of faith. There is no proof, even unscientific. In other words, you can never see God.

In science, there are no basic tenents. All things must be proven, which means that they must be demonstrable to others. You must be able to see God.

Yet is is not hard to argue that more people believe in religion than in science. Why would this be? This is a subject that has been covered in the literature, but I will add my simple observation, although it is without scientific proof: People are afraid of their own mortality. Religions all provide immortality, through the creation of an afterlife, in another universe that we cannot observe from here. The promise of immortality is the basis of all religion, and the reason humanity believes in it.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: xardra on 09/03/2005 19:03:39
Alrighty, you guys may want to know that i am tronix's girlfriend and i am a wiccan and i have a lot of faith in my religion. but i don't take it all verbatum,  creation myths dopn;t make sense to me, science has always fascinated me since i was a baby, but religoin was forced down my throat (i was brought up as a catholic) now you can't take everthing as is from "holy" books, there are reasonable ecxplinations of what really happend, and they make more sense that the "vengeful god/ loving god" thing.

i don';t care what tronix says, i loved science before him, i want to know how and why.

but you all seem to be seeing things from a christian perspective, my religion is  about peace, not fear or anger... you don't need a religion, but as humans we want to belive in something, a relioin or a scientific fact that could be disproven....

oh by the way hi!

Science and religion are of the same family, but they hate eachother... Family reunions are a nightmare....
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: gsmollin on 09/03/2005 19:31:55
Welcome Xardra! Well now we have a couple, Tronix and Xardra. I hope those aren't your real names. It would make Moonbeam and Chynna seem ordinary. But seriously, folks, we hope you enjoy this discussion forum. We normally discuss only scientific topics, but I think fringy things are tolerated well, as long as they are interesting.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Ultima on 09/03/2005 23:28:10
xardra, do you believe in reincarnation, karma (not sure what the Wicca specific terminology is), and that your soul resides in Summerland in death, to reflect on past lives before starting a new?

I think perhaps I should join a religious forum, it's a darn shame that most are specific to one religion, and don’t have a "general religion" thread on them [:D]

On a science side, if it exists what might a soul be made of I wonder... some strange exotic matter that exists in weird dimensions hidden from view?


wOw the world spins?
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Tronix on 10/03/2005 16:11:08
well, thats what i think. assuming string theory is right, on of these dimensions coudl be a spiritual one, where all manner of spiritual forces exsist, perhaps with their own set of physics. But of cousre you would have to define whaty "spirit" really is. perhaps it is some body of energy or matter that transcends to the "physical" dimension and resides within all life, giving it a sort of "framework" for emotion and, thoughts, and maybe even luck. Perhaps its like most religions surmise, a form of "us" on a different plane, unaffected by physical wear and tear or death. An actual form of eternity, or at least an indefinitely long lived entity. Many Many people have claimed spirtual and other worldly experiences, all with proof. And this has been going on, with otherwise sane people claiming it, for thousands of years. There may be something to it.

Yes, im interested in studying the paranormal. so sue me.  It just seems to me that too mnay people have talked about too many diferent but similar event in too many cases for too long in our history to not have at least someone looking into it. if nothign else, we may find something new about our world that nobody thought of by the end of it. i say its worth a gander.

unfortunatley, it doesnot pay well, and enviromental research , another field im interested in, does pay well. so ill do it on the side till i can retire or one of our presidents is dumb enough or interested enough to give paranormal research i nice chunky grant or two.

But thats my wierd belief butting heads with science. As for my stance on religion, i am not as devout as Xardra (no thats not her name, by the way). I find science to suit me better, but i fully support her wonderful religion, especially since i am studying the enviroment, and i absolutley root for everything it supports, love, free-thinking, respect for nature and many other things. As for its coexsistance with my science, hasn't bothered me none. Im still treking along, looking at bugs and eating grass.

"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Titanscape on 10/03/2005 21:08:34
I'd say that science is only one aspect of human thought and reason. Another part which is not necessarily based on ancient Greek logic and natural science is 'relational knowing'. As a young man I did have an aweful lot of strange day dreams of Hell and Heaven. I knew it was nonsense. But then I nearly died or so I thought. It is critisised this turning to God only when we need Him. But I began to discipline myself from wicked conduct. I asked Him not to let me die. I repented, fell to my knees and had a relational knowing of Jesus before me, and my conscience became clear. So I had a knowing after a faith, with the element of request or communication.

I then in my lack of knowledge fell happily back into my Catholic faith which I had left from lack of interest... I liked conforming, but found some things didn't give me peace or esteem like I needed them to. So conforming was partly an error.

Guilt was gone from me in a clear conscience and such is offered to all. Ultimately people can't turn to God just from fear of death but need to ask for life and forgiveness, deliverance from evil... as in the Our Father which I prayed then with "Don't let me die". I was also alerting myself to reality with wide open eyes, anti day dreaming.

Instead of using science regarding the paranormal, seek to experience Jesus. Look for a prophet or something like that in an evangelist.

Wicca seems to involve magic and the other spirts as grey magic suggests, dark spirits. They can't enlighten you. They are dead and can't give you life.

Where did the universe come from, matter and dimensions...? Inner reasoning too? If one says Hydrogen than where was that from, and before that and before that and so on. Why did they ancient Greeks who invented logic turn to Paul's Gospel? And Paul died for his mission. The Greeks and Romans looked into the apostles writings and invented a logical approach to understanding God and some people like it. Theology.

Titanscape
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: neilep on 11/03/2005 00:45:21
Oh goody more voters !![:D]..don't forget to cast your vote , and smile too !![:D]http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=903[:)]

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: xardra on 11/03/2005 15:57:14
i didn't mean to make this a religious discussion. my original intent was to clear up the fact that i have a strong passion for both science and religion. i was trying to say that i had a rather expansive (although not too detailed) knowledge of science.
i'm not saying this to make my dear tronix angry, but i knew a lot before he came along, just because i listen and ask questions dosen't mean that i don't know about the other stuff, i have read more books on quantem physis than he has...so there.....

i think he waqnted to show that we are a struggling couple whose beliefs are very different and we are co exisitng and in love with eachother...



Science and religion are of the same family, but they hate eachother... Family reunions are a nightmare....
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: neilep on 11/03/2005 18:37:32
quote:
Originally posted by xardra

i didn't mean to make this a religious discussion. my original intent was to clear up the fact that i have a strong passion for both science and religion.

i think he waqnted to show that we are a struggling couple whose beliefs are very different and we are co exisitng and in love with eachother...



AHHHHH...that's so sweet......I'm happy you two are in love dspite adversity that is your own personal opinions........

i think you have clearly demonstrated how any hint at religion in a thread is never really going to be constrained within a few words.....as each post continues , they provide fuel for all of our own individual points of view and it's such a humungous topic that it's easy to see how quickly the tone of a thread can change where Religion is involved. One thing it's always sure to guarantee are almost defensive points of view en masse !!....and that's what I have to say about that.[:)]

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: gsmollin on 12/03/2005 00:32:46
That's why you never discuss religion, or politics at a party... or a discussion forum.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Titanscape on 14/03/2005 15:54:03
Sorry about my long post. Just i think relational knowing is as valid as scientific.

Titanscape
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: neilep on 14/03/2005 18:22:04
quote:
Originally posted by Titanscape

Sorry about my long post. Just i think relational knowing is as valid as scientific.

Titanscape


No need to apologise Bren, you have nothing to apologise for, this is a nice healthy thread [;)]....write as long posts as you wish...

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.world-of-smilies.com%2Fhtml%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fmini%2Fmini018.gif&hash=43d4f680fb1e52aecb14b539cb9eba2c)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Moonjade1907 on 27/03/2005 12:03:29
I just got back from a party where we discussed religion vs. science..and both things ask you to do one thing "Believe in the unknown" Religion asks you to believe in the unknown of the past and science asks you to believe in the work that is being done to prove or disprove theories.. I think in my life..I have asked a lot of questions..and even experienced things i cant explain...So I have found what i like to call my "Center" i found a way to believe in science and in religion.. Some people think i am crazy to say that both things have valid points that can be mixed...most say it can't be done..but i disagree...I believe in both...i do not have a "Religion" I was raised as a Lutheran ...but i find the bible very hard to agree with..But like i said..i have seen things that makes me believe in an afterlife...in a higher being...as for science..it explains a lot of the unexplained..I won't go on repeating things that have already been said..I just wanted to say that I believe never stop asking questions..but don't lose your faith! Science and Religion can intermix...if you open up your mind to it...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: xardra on 28/03/2005 20:46:39
thank you that is what we wnated to say!! huggles to you!!!

Science and religion are of the same family, but they hate eachother... Family reunions are a nightmare....
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Tronix on 28/03/2005 21:00:48
Exactly our (me and xardra's) point Moonjade (and wlecome by the way). Science and religion are both modes of understanding. One understands by reason, another by faith. A scientist may have faith that his theory is true, which spurs him to find the answer, and a buddihist or wiccan or christian or what have you needs to have some small bits of proof to back up his faith. A possible mix, but not an easy one. But, i dont see why someone cant believe that god sent life on the path to evolution, or that thier is a possibility of ghosts and such.

By the by I and Xardra would liek to thank you for your openmindedness. The world needs more people like you. thnks

--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Ylide on 29/03/2005 12:41:13
quote:
Originally posted by Tronix

Science and religion are both modes of understanding. One understands by reason, another by faith. A scientist may have faith that his theory is true, which spurs him to find the answer, and a buddihist or wiccan or christian or what have you needs to have some small bits of proof to back up his faith. A possible mix, but not an easy one. But, i dont see why someone cant believe that god sent life on the path to evolution, or that thier is a possibility of ghosts and such.



Scientists don't use faith to develop hypotheses.  Say that I believe a mutation on the gene for a certain enzyme is responsible for the development of type 2 diabetes.  As a scientist, I would not have come to this conclusion randomly, by praying, or by seeing someone's face embedded in a potato chip.  I would have come to this conclusion by analysis of known facts about genetics, physiology, and biochemistry.  Now, I would like to test this hypothesis.  I perform a variety of experiments and with the proper controls, I can demonstrate whether my hypothesis is supported or unsupported.  If the data supports the hypothesis and (and here's the tricky part) is reproducible under similar conditions in another lab then I have a nice little theory on my hands.  

The difference lies in that religious hypotheses (there is a divine creator who made everything, he sees all, he knows all, yadda yadda) cannot be tested or proven in any way as of this point in time.  They are believed in because they are passed down culturally across generations and people are indoctrinated into them at a young age.  It's hard to shake a belief in something that's been told to you your entire life that can't be directly disproven by anyone.  

And this is exactly why hardcore scientists and hardcore religious people simply do not get along when it comes to discussing the nature of life, existance, the soul, the universe, or anything that contradicts faith vs. observation.  We think they are stupid and they think we are heathens.  

With that aside, I'm not willing to rule out the existance of some source of energy that drove our universe into motion or even a higher intelligence that designed the physical laws.  But that's as far as I go.  With so many religions out there clamoring that they are the one true faith and the behavior that so many of them exhibit in trying to demonstrate their righteousness, I'm loathe to believe that any of them are even close to the truth.  The Zen Buddhists have a good idea because they admit they don't know crap and are willing to sit and meditate until they figure something out.  That's not the course I'd choose, but at least they're not killing anyone.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Tronix on 31/03/2005 06:21:14
a good point Yilde. But still, a scientitst may, whether intentionally or not have faith in a theroy. this seems to happen alot in technological and medical advancements. Faith that there is a way to cure polio, for example. i dont know if Jonas Salk prayed for a cure or the intellegence to figure one out, or if he gave more concessions to get on god's good side, or even if he did freaking voodoo rituals to help. But im sure he believed, or even "knew" he could find a cure. There was no solid proof he could find a cure for polio, excpet maybe the logical reasoning that other people figured out cures for other diseases that told him "hey, if they could do it, why cant i?". Still though, technically, if one is defining faith as belief in something that cannot be proven or disproven (at least until its a moot point), then yeah, Jonas likley had faith in his hypothesis. But if it is defined as "knowing/assuming/beileving very strongly that something is true/false without proof", then not many, but some scientists have fatih. No, faith didnt create his theory for a cure, his logic that a disease can be cured becuase other could did, but at least belief, if not faith was involved. Now, HOW he did it, and the detials of the hypothesis (that it could be cured with a "killed" version of the disease, for example) were scientific, based on logic and proof and reasoning and lots and lots of thinking. A scientist can and does generally believe in something about his theroy until its proven or disproven.

Now, generally, scientists may have faith, maybe even in one or two of their theories, but generally they keep it loose and at a minimum. A scientist, whom has faith in gravity pointing away from the center of the earth would be called insane, much less a crackpot, unless he had damn good logic, and then even better proof. A scientist whom has faith in a theory that is disproven will likely be at least upset if not devestated, depending on how much time , energy and money he sunk into it. Thus, a scientist would be wise to also at least believe he could be dead freaking wrong.

    Now, with most religion, its not so easy to disprove them, becuase of the loftiness of the "theories" and that while the basic concepts of the faith rarely if ever change the logic behind them can be picked from anywhere, thus its hard to disprove, and even if it was, they wouldnt care, as proof is not the point of religion, its faith (at least thats my observation).

But as far as i know, Copernicus wasnt persecuting altar boys that thought the earth was at the center of the universe, and Albert didnt kill anyone because of his "faith" in a Gravity/Electomagnetism Unified Theroy. That statement alone can spark a raging fire amoungst people based on what they believe about Unified Theory. Belief, even faith, in his Unified Theory, drove him to search until he died.  

Faith is not (i would hope) used in the proving of a theory, and it should not entirely be used in the creation of a hypothesis, if it has to be used at all (but that would mean it would be a proven theory). But still, for some of the biggest scientific endeavours, one must "believe", without any proof and logic that can be wrong, that this hypothesis or that hypothesis is worth doing. Same for some great technological advancements. Edison tried at least 2000 times to make a light bulb, and he may not have gotten to it if he hadnt have a little faith that there was a way to do it. No praying on the rosary. No invoking the godess. No poking voodoo dolls with heated needles between their legs, just a little confidence in himself and some faith in an effective electrical light device that couldnt be proven until he made it, at which point its moot. That is the "faith" of the scientist and the inventor, while its not not nessesary, it can happen without ruining the whole thing or causing "fundamentalism", and it does happen. And its not so bad to believe in your theory, i think, so long as you believe or realize it could be wrong.



--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: neilep on 31/03/2005 08:34:55
Can I just mention Tronix, that when you say a scientist can have faith, you're not meanining that the faith a scientist has means that he/she believes in a god yes ?...you mean that the scientist just believes that the answer to a problem or research will eventually be attained by study and experimentation eh ?...therefore the  Faith a scientist has is just the belief that a conclusion must exist after empirical study.........nothing to do with religion at all eh ?

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.world-of-smilies.com%2Fhtml%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fmini%2Fmini018.gif&hash=43d4f680fb1e52aecb14b539cb9eba2c)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: xardra on 31/03/2005 18:29:54
some scientists may say that god will help prove that they are right (weather or not you would call that person a scientist or a nut job is up to you)others will just  have confidence that they have dona all they can to prove that they are right. both rely on the same thing--a blind belief that something will be right or will work. you can test a theory 20000 times and "know" that it is correct. then someone coomes along and does a few experiments then BAM! you're proven wrong. but you had the confidence/faith that you got it that far...

Science and religion are of the same family, but they hate eachother... Family reunions are a nightmare....
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Tronix on 31/03/2005 18:34:22
quote:
Originally posted by neilep

Can I just mention Tronix, that when you say a scientist can have faith, you're not meanining that the faith a scientist has means that he/she believes in a god yes ?...you mean that the scientist just believes that the answer to a problem or research will eventually be attained by study and experimentation eh ?...therefore the  Faith a scientist has is just the belief that a conclusion must exist after empirical study.........nothing to do with religion at all eh ?

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.world-of-smilies.com%2Fhtml%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fmini%2Fmini018.gif&hash=43d4f680fb1e52aecb14b539cb9eba2c)


doink, right on the money. Again, not saying that there is no such thing as a Christian or Buddihist or even Hermetic scientist, but yeah, the kind of faith you mentioned is the kind that many that scientists have, and that relates us in some ways to religion. We both have faith, just not the same way.

--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Sandwalker on 04/04/2005 18:14:39
A rational faith perhaps!
If such a thing exists.[}:)]


Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: gsmollin on 05/04/2005 03:11:15
"rational faith"... an oxymoron. Either you people have never studied religion, or you just never paid attention. Articles of faith are taken without proof, not even enough proof for a scientist to construct a coherent hypothesis. In a religious sense, the word "faith" has no relationship to the use of the same word when we really mean "reasonable hope". A scientist has "reasonable hope" that after enough theory and experiment he can prove a hypothesis and raise it to a working theory. The word "faith" may be used in place of "hope", but its got nothing in common with religion.

In a religious context, articles of faith have been already proved by the word of God, and are not open to anymore meddling. What you are discussing here is heresy, and the church has not treated heretics kindly in the past.

Some scientists are deeply religious. Whatever religious beliefs they hold on faith are not the same things they seek to prove by scientific method.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: MayoFlyFarmer on 05/04/2005 04:26:35
as a "scientist of faith" (doesn't that sound screwed up.... but i gues sits the propper term) I have to say qsmollin is right on the money there.

Are YOUR mice nude? [;)]
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Tronix on 07/04/2005 15:46:18
quote:
Originally posted by gsmollin

"rational faith"... an oxymoron. Either you people have never studied religion, or you just never paid attention. Articles of faith are taken without proof, not even enough proof for a scientist to construct a coherent hypothesis. In a religious sense, the word "faith" has no relationship to the use of the same word when we really mean "reasonable hope". A scientist has "reasonable hope" that after enough theory and experiment he can prove a hypothesis and raise it to a working theory. The word "faith" may be used in place of "hope", but its got nothing in common with religion.

In a religious context, articles of faith have been already proved by the word of God, and are not open to anymore meddling. What you are discussing here is heresy, and the church has not treated heretics kindly in the past.

Some scientists are deeply religious. Whatever religious beliefs they hold on faith are not the same things they seek to prove by scientific method.



That does bring up a good point, and that intesity of faith is something that science doesnot naturally achieve. Still, you can see some overlap when faith isnt as focused or strong. Some relgions are loosley structured and not only allow but encourage their followers to "do it their way". Some religions dont have much in the way of mythology or big books where they get there doctrines from. Less structured religions like that cultivate all kinds of degrees of faith and kinds of faith, even some kind of "reasonable faith" based on "unscientific" things ("hey, if everything good in my life has had the number 3 in it somehow, and i was born on the 3rd day of the 3rd month and the 3rd hour, that must be my lucky number, and (insert deity)'s number is 3, so ill pray/invoke/call upon/do magic with him/her"). Even in highly dogamtic relgions, not all patrons nessarily "know" that everythign in their main book is pure as gold, although they generally either keep quiet about or start a revolution. Take good old catholics and protestants. The Catholics "know" the pope cant be wrong, but eventually some of them started to not like what the pope was doing. At first, they may have had only faith in him becuase he was supposed to be chosen by god, where as they "knew" that god went by "these" standards. When the two didnt mesh, they may have had a "revelation", and know their faith was turned against the pope, or at least disapeered. This is how demoninations are formed. Hell, at first the thing that seperated the jews and christians was Jesus.

In conclusion. There are all kinds of faiths to be found in relgion, including the faith that requires no proof at all. Still, Science and religion share common bonds in places. very very very streched bonds, bt they are still there.

--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: ADD HAHAHA on 08/04/2005 05:44:11
has any1 noticed that most religion r agenst eachother but most ariginated from the same place ( sand scriped ) its all just different interperitations of it.

its dissction has gone on n on about cathlic n ect...
but wat about budisum, finding 1s inner self, thay beleve that in the body there is hmmm.... a coflict wit the good n the bad n they meditae to find the balance of the 2.

Then theres druidism vary scientific and respecting of nature. they ask y or how

humens r bouned 2 come up wit some kind of reilig... its in there nature. like 2 blame a drought on a rain god or a good harvest on the god of food.

P.S. hi all i'm new at this but mainly HI (:D)
 


Drew Rody
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: gsmollin on 08/04/2005 17:51:46
ur pst s nrly impsbl 2 rd
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: ADD HAHAHA on 08/04/2005 18:13:32
PST???

lol 2 ur spellin

Drew Rody
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 08/04/2005 18:44:56
Post.

Did you know one guy wrote a little program 2 'Prince-nise' ur ritin'? Hilarious, but after two pages it's been quite enough. Had the same nearly with Train Spotting, which is a different 'slang' (Scottish), but has to be read out loud to be understandable, nearly... [:)]

OT: pick up The Religion of Technology by D. Noble

http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/lectures/comments/s_hall-nobl_rev001.htm

and you'll see that the two are much closer intertwined than you believed possible. Like two faces of one coin, in stead of opposite numbers...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: pink_person on 17/04/2005 01:54:12
science is great it helps us understand the things God does, but every once in a while it gets out of place and Jesus has to nudge it along to the right place again

Pink
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: kjahafa on 08/05/2005 17:30:43
This is kinda like asking would you like paper or plastic? Both have the same purpose but are different. My take on this subject is this: Science explains our tangible existence and religion fulfills the intangible/phenomenal/spiritual/unexplainable existence. Science is not a belief and religion is not the only way to communicate with the Creator. If a child asks questions about the sun, moon and earth, will scientists answer all the questions? If religious people were to see the full spectrum of human life, will they be able to answer the underlying question of why? I don't think our brains are nor ever will be capable of understanding existence.  The bottom line is believe what you want, firmly. It has taken me awhile to come to this conclusion on my existence; because I am alive,I must do something. It is in the how have I accomplished what I accomplished that is important.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: simeonie on 08/05/2005 19:02:28
It is pretty cool reading all these people's different opinions and they are all quite different. I personally think that science and 'religeon' are quite different in some ways. Science is very slowly proving that God is real. A lot of Scientists have a lot of different opinions and there are qutie a lot of Chrisitan Scientists. However Generally Scientists believe in evolution and they are very slowly being prooved wrong. I think that Science is just a way of trying to explain how God made this earth etc. but has now drifted from that.

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 08/05/2005 19:57:32
I think that faith and the scientific method are incompatable, as the whole point of faith is that you should belive without evidence, and the point of the scientific method is to question everything, believe nothing, and keep testing your theories against how the world works. There might be a god, ten gods, or whatever, but even if this was prooved, a scientist would then ask how he worked.

PS I don't think there are many scientists who think that much of evolution is being slowly prooved wrong who don't have ulterior religious motives.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: simeonie on 09/05/2005 21:24:34
hmmm well I think we have disagreements then because I think that you can be a scientist and have faith. I think you can actually prove a lot of 'religeos' things but I do admit for some of them you do need faith.....
p.s I hate using that word 'religeous'

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 09/05/2005 21:37:49
I didn't say you couldn't just that the two approaches are incompatible, so it requires you to partition the things that you are going to think about scientifically and those that you are going to think about religiously. As thinking about religion scientifically will lead immediately to the lack of hard evidence, and if you think about schience religiously you end up being hung up on dogma - hence the whole Catholic earth is the centre of the solar system issue...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 09/05/2005 22:13:58
The big bang theory was not Hubble's, but Lemaitre's (Belgian Catholic Priest), and immediately embraced by the Vatican, since it 'confirmed' a moment of creation.

Just one example of how close the two 'disciplines' can get, simply because they are looking for answers to the same questions, albeit in totally diverse manner.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Tronix on 10/05/2005 04:29:10
so this is where this threads been hiding.

well im glad yall are still responding and think this thread is worthy of replying in.

on the subject of christian scientists, this seems to happen alot. Albert Einstein, the practical founder of an entire branch of science, which is also the science of everything, was relgious, and often said he was trying to know what god knew. Religion and scence can coexsist, clearly.

but what is also clear is that there is a point in which they conflict, and dave makes this point when he mentions that the scientific method pushes questioning even the most proven laws of nature, and faith should survive even the most damning scrutiny.

Their idealogies dont mix, that is certain. but if oen gives leeway to both, they can mix. paranormalists know what im talking about, becuase they lack concrete proof for what they believe, but know without proof that what they are looking for is at least worth looking for, if not true. And on the relgious end, there are very forumulaic magical arts (hermetics, alchemy, numerology) in which practioners do experiment and attempt to understand thier art and the world, but they come from the relgious end, their basic laws based on faith (like hermetics based on the faith that their magical and metaphysical laws are from the revelations of an egpytian god)



--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 10/05/2005 14:36:04
Funny how both the church and academia are united in their frowning on numerology, parapsychology, and some other hermestrismegistus-like phenomena mentioned.

Seems they do share quite a bit, but it seems not any of the things you mention... [;)]

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 10/05/2005 14:41:06
Yeah they go against both religious dogma and evidence which is quite good going ;)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 10/05/2005 14:55:57
To make up for that (don't want to be condescending in any way): anyone here know who the first true-blue alchemist in the real sense was? Not with turning lead into gold, of course...




[A: http://www.tfainc.com/library.asp]

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: simeonie on 10/05/2005 16:23:03
Erm don't mean to sound stupid.... but what does dogma mean? I think Science is just trying to find out how God did it. Some people though don't believe he did though. This is a really cool topic and I like seeing what people think. There are Christian Scientists ya know and it is good to understand the evolution theories and the Big Bang stuff but they are all not true.

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 10/05/2005 16:41:50
Dogma is the truth-in-a-booklet type of thing. Basically just a list of what you're supposed to think.

With science that would translate to pop-sci stuff that from the lower end of the quality spectrum, where everything is simplified in a similar manner (see, scientists must accept what's true, not what they wish to believe, even if it's not pleasant -no discipline is without minor allowances).

Churches are pretty high on dogma. The difference with 'scientific rigour' is that the latter is more adaptable to change. Not fast, always, but judging from history this cannot be denied.

It'd be wrong in my view to think that because science isn't perfect, and neither is our understanding of evolution or cosmogeny or math, the alternatives given by the church are compatible. They are the condensation of memories that have become so condensed over time, that there has been a bit of degradation in clarity and function: it has become oversimplified, and is also not amenable to change. That's never good.

So, if I'm honest, evolution theory is 100% better than a story that confuses even kids, with ingredients that belie everything you know from real life. Almost fairy-tale like representations of very old, oral history. There's truth hiding in there, but it's covered by so much muck over time, you'd have to be a very dedicated person indeed to separate wheat from chaff...

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Titanscape on 12/05/2005 15:22:57
What happened to my post?

Titanscape
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 15/05/2005 10:09:44
Errm. Still missing, I take it. Maybe related to the 'login problems' people reported? Dunno.

Anyway: nice experiment to show how even scientists can fall for dogma: any scientist willing to conduct it with me by answering the following question:

A black hole has been reported sitting at the center of a galaxy close to 450 million lighyears away, and it has a size calculated to be around 3,5 to 5 lightyears in diameter.

Yet, there is something totally impossibly wrong with it. Something that defies our astronomic common sense.

Now, what question would a respectable scientist - being impervious to dogma - ask first, before investigating the matter any further?

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Tronix on 19/05/2005 16:09:19
These questions in this order.

How was it found?
Where was it found?
What was used to find it?
Who found it?
When was it found?
Why was it looked for?
What is the theory on its irregualar size?



--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 19/05/2005 19:14:48
Ah, an answer. Last one is actually the correct one. What makes it that big? Incredibly big, even - any black hole that size would have had several HUNDREDS of galaxies for breakfast, and we do not know of any that size, of course. It does not exist.

In previous discussions I've people DID think this was possible, only doing the math finally convinced them. But on faith, they accepted them gladly - nothing wrong with a lightyear in diameter more or less...

that's dogma for you. Read to much pulp science, and you are maybe aware of activity at the frontiers of science, but have no clue as to its exact borders, and accept anomalies several orders of magnitude outside the scope of reality.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: rosy on 19/05/2005 21:02:58
quote:
Now, what question would a respectable scientist - being impervious to dogma - ask first, before investigating the matter any further?

I think actually a respectable (say) chemist would say "Oh really? Is that unusual? Would you like to explain why?"
I take the approach that the "last man to know everything there was to know", whether that was Goethe, da Vinci, J S Mill or Milton, died some time ago, that there's no way I can understand everything, and that unless it goes sharply against my prejudices about how the world works (or I know that there's a debate going on as to the validity of the results) I'll assume that the experts have more idea than I have in most fields.
That's not to say I'd be particularly surprised to find anything I'd assumed was accurate from such sources had been re-evaluated.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 19/05/2005 21:24:28
I think the best scenario is when people are able to question the validity of ANY thing, which is not the same as trying to be a walking encyclopedia. There is such a thing as common sense, or there should be... funny thing is children seem to have more of it than grownups, even  [:)]

And respectable has nothing to do with it, really. Nor are the best physics teachers by default the best physicists, quite the contrary even.

Also remember the fate of Lord Kelvin, who was such an overwhelming personality and general Mr. Know-it-all he singlehandedly put scientific progress in the second half of his life to a virtual standstill. So, equally try to see someone who has made a career of explaining stuff over half a century old as not exactly the best  source or judge even for bleeding-edge technology. You cannot have it all...


The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: rosy on 19/05/2005 22:19:19
Um, my apologies. I may have been being slightly flippant. I would, of course, agree with you that questionning the validity of an assertion is a generally useful thing to do (I might go so far as to be offended that you seem to have assumed otherwise, but possibly that degree of hamming risks being taken seriously if put down in text).

All I was suggesting was that, as you point out, people are often orders of magnitude out in how big they think things are. But on the other hand, if someone tells me (a chemist, of sorts) "oh, that black hole is n lightyears across" I don't really see that it's of much immediate interest to me unless I know, or have just had it explained, that the largest known black hole to date is (n-5) or n/10 lightyears across.
That was why I made the point about *unless I know it's a subject of debate, or I find it very surprising*... I wouldn't personally know how even to approach the maths!

I wasn't suggesting that anyone *should* know everything. That was my point... that the assertion you cite about the enormous black hole is *of course* perfectly believeable until you do the maths unless you're tuned into that area of thought anyway.

Oh, and I used the term "respectable scientists" because you did. In my book they are the ones who haven't ossified into thinking their theories are right and stopped looking at the evidence... which is to say scientists worthy of respect. Did you mean something different? My comment about respectable chemists was intended to mean that a chemist who might be doing terrific cutting edge science in, say, molecular orbital interactions, might need to be prompted to query the size of a black hole. If you work on the nanometer scale, anything over about a micron can be classed as "big" and left at that... unless you happen to be discussing black holes with a flatmate.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 20/05/2005 11:29:49
quote:
Originally posted by rosy

.. I wouldn't personally know how even to approach the maths!


Oh, that's relatively simple, you can even use google for it these days...

OK, let's put r= 1 lightyear.

(2 * G * ((3 203 * (10^9)) * (1.9891 * ((10^30) kg)))) / (c^2) = 1.00001814 lightyears

To create a black hole with a lightyear radius you need (just over) a whopping *3200* billion solar masses. That's over thirty of your average run-off-the-mill galaxies. So that's out.

Similarly, you can do calculations on how long it would take to create the incredibly large collections of galaxies known as superclusters. That's about 80 billion years, give or take a few. Considering the universe is supposed to be only 15 billion years old or thereabouts, quite a feat.

No astronomer has any answer to that, btw.



The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 20/05/2005 12:55:12
Did you actually find a report of this somewhere?

My guess is that the scientist wasn't talking about schwartzchild radius when they mentioned the size, - maybe it is the size of the acretian disk. A reporter then heard size, black hole and 3.5-5 lightyears and missed out the important bit...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 20/05/2005 13:33:48
Yes, probably. But then still, the black hole would roughly be about 0,4 lightyears in diameter (1/12,5th following 4pi*d^2) , and that's still 1282 billion solar masses. Still way too many galaxies for comfort.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 20/05/2005 14:59:20
Are the radio sources that shoot out of the top or bottom of an accretian disk related to black holes as they can be a few light years long can't they?
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 20/05/2005 19:53:33
Longer even, but I don't think they meant those... anyway, even 'supermassive' black holes turn out to be rather puny, if you take a closer evaluation, unless they've been eating outdoors in secret, of course... [:)]

Say a big whopper, that you sometimes read about, like 3 billion solar masses, would be a measly 0.000936638904 lightyears.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: rosy on 21/05/2005 00:33:59
0.000936638904 lightyears

Wow, what precision.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 21/05/2005 10:07:13
Don't forget those are approximate formulas, they'll never be precise to the exact cm or even kilometer, mind you, and these numbers are much, much longer in reality.

But lets put them a bit back into 'normal' perspective. The black hole supposedly at the centre of this galaxy is estimated to be 1 billion solar masses. That would mean it would have a radius of 2.95369965 × 10^9 = nearly 3 billion kilometers, so a diameter of twice that.

Now 6 billion kilometers at a distance of 8 kiloparsecs (2.4685442 × 10^17 kilometers) means trying to see an object of  0.0790660366 nanometers at 1 lightyear (9.4605284 × 10^12 kilometers) distance. An average atom has a diameter of 0.1 to 0.5 nanometers.

So basically you're trying to see something less than a tenth of an atom across at a distance way, way beyond Pluto.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: rosy on 21/05/2005 10:59:29
Um, OK, what I meant was"I can't quite believe you can justify quoting anything like that degree of precision" possibly I should rephrase that as a question...

So... what.... that 9 significant figure number you've quoted is approximate? Or do you mean that the black hole you're talking about with mass three billion solar masses is somewhere round about 1E-3 lightyears across, give or take some.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 21/05/2005 11:19:57
We just have a standard formula, and out rolls a size, but we do not have any visual confirmation of exact size, or the size of the accretion disk - several formulas for that, even -, and even those impressive lighthouse beams. All artists impressions are just that, without their incredible effects on their environment, making those at least visible, we wouldn't even know they were there... for a infinitesimal speck on the horizon, they have quite a 'drag'.

Oh and don't be impressed with a bit of google magic: here's the formula for the radius of a black hole (half of its diameter)

(2 * G * ((billions of solar masses * (10^9)) * (1.9891 * ((10^30) kg)))) / (c^2) in lightyears

(just cut and paste it into the google bar, and replace 'billions of solar masses' with any number) where google already knows what you mean with G and c, and can of course do it in  kilometers as well as lightyears or whatever measure you need. The rest of the formula are just pretty well known constants and values.

So fill in a 1000, and you have a pretty precise number for the black hole at the centre of this universe. Hope that makes you try out more stuff with it, it can be pretty awesome.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: rosy on 21/05/2005 11:39:54
Yeah... to be honest I'm less impressed than, um, sceptical... infact now I've checked I'm outright disbelieving.
you have a precise number, but I don't believe you have an accurate number.
According to this website (the people who build NASA satelites, apparently)
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/astro_constants.html
G is only known to an accuracy of 4-5 sig fig and so any calculations based on G will have an ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM accuracy of 4 SF depending on the accuracy of the other values you've plugged in. In this instance, you're using a mass accurate to 1-2 sig fig.
G = 6.67259 (± 0.00030) x 10-11 kg-1 m3 s-2

Given that I know you're rightly keen on questioning everything, it's proabably worthwhile to think twice bfore copy-pasting out of a calculator ;)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 21/05/2005 12:47:04
That's the spirit. It is the official formula tho, not googles or HP's... r = 2GM/c^2.

here's the different ones for the accretion disk:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/AccretionDisk.html

Also M is taken here as 1,9891 and is mostly given as 1,989

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass

so yes, it depends on what you toss in, and you might as well cut off the last few million kilometers. If you look carefully at that table you used btw, and scroll to the mass estimates for the solar system, you'll see that the bigger the mass, the more confident the estimate.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: rosy on 21/05/2005 12:53:47
;) Sorry... I'm not questioning that it's the official (and *presumably* most rigorously tested) formula!
All I meant was that the last few sig figs were pretty much meaningless (except possibly for misleading the unwary as to how accurately it's currently possible to measure this stuff).
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 21/05/2005 13:23:59
Good point. It's only the official, surviving one in a sense, though. There have been others, slightly different, and rejected for different reasons. And testing, ah, testing. Now there's a good point. [:D]

Also all those nice round rough estimates (1000 billion solar masses, why not 956), the fact some of these objects are hundreds of millions of lightyears away and we are roughly estimating all those 'facts' based on observations of disturbances of much greater regions, and it is obvious that this kind of precision would not get you to the moon and back.

But people eat it like pie, and what's worse, they NEED that kind of semi-certainty, as if it made some kind of a difference.

(Even if my calculation about comparative size at a lighyear was trillions of times off, say the thing would be as big as a pea at one lightyear, would it make any difference? Not much in this case, for all practical purposes, but next time as for my calculation, too. ;)

Even scientists fall for it. Their need to appear so confident and infinitely precise is just filling in a niche, and of course they oblige. They can fulfill the same kind of psychological need for *reassurance* in our knowledge as priests do, and not only purely in our *knowledge*.

Therefore scientists should always be aware of the important difference, and Joe and Jane Public a lot less demure in his or her questioning.

added:

an example of such an article that I hope people will now read differently than before:

http://www.obspm.fr/messier/more/m087_hst.html

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 21/05/2005 13:35:47
I think Rosy is making a far more fundamental point, which was drummed into me in Physics A-level and during my degree...
"If you put rubbish into a formula you get rubbish out" so if you are putting figures in that are +/- 30%, the answer will be (depending on the exact formula) +/- 30%, so quoting the answer to .00000001% is pointless and very misleading.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 21/05/2005 13:49:20
Mmm. Where'd you get that 30% from? My calculations were deceptively precise, but not off by more than a relative whisker, certainly not that.

Calling an object 'solar system sized', or pretending that it is any kind of exact measure, now that's misleading. What kind of definition is that?

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 21/05/2005 14:06:47
I was talking in more general terms, but you are picking an arbitrary mass of about 1000 billion solar masses surely it is not meaningful to quote the answer to more than 1-2 significant figures?

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your calculation, just that you are quoting the answer to a ridiculous accuracy... possibly a bit picky but you did start it ;)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 21/05/2005 14:49:13
The difference in G is a max of 30 per 10,000, that's the closest I can think of. Anyway.

Using more than 2 decimal places in these matters is not what it's about, though. Remember the name of the thread? It's about gullibility more than anything else.

I didn't pick the number of 1 billion

Fact remains, that ANY direct mention of such sizes, has very little to do with direct observation, but are derived via yet another calculation/guesstimate. Fact number two remains, tho: the sizes mentioned are not only questionable, but if they are anything, they are too big. In that sense the calculations are very valid and not misleading.

Which leads us back to my original proposition that dogma has its counterpart in pulp science, where the need for reassurance wins on factuality/inquisitiveness by a knock-out.


[* edit late typo - that was what the whole argument was about: you cannot have objects that need 1000 billion or 3000 billion, like a 1/2 - lightyear-big black hole - sorry for the late edit but I had to leave in a rush and realised it only later, I'll stick to exponential notation in future, sigh.]

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 22/05/2005 11:29:21
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts

I was talking in more general terms, but you are picking an arbitrary mass of about 1000 billion solar masses surely it is not meaningful to quote the answer to more than 1-2 significant figures?

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your calculation, just that you are quoting the answer to a ridiculous accuracy... possibly a bit picky but you did start it ;)


Summarising:
Dave, with rosy's comments calculated in, there would be only a marginal difference between my answers and the ones that would be used in an official paper, where cutting off at a certain decimal is more of an editorial function, or adding a +/- uncertainty to avoid any nitpickery.

Again, because of the numbers used, this would be millions of kilometers different in reality, but as for the calculation still be more in the order of 1/30th of a procent, than 30.

Also don't forget that the calculation is done in kilometers, before converting to lightyears. That's only done in the end, of course.

As to your question about sizes of suspected accretion disks:

"This 130 light-year diameter disk encircles a suspected black hole which may be one billion times the mass of our Sun."

http://bustard.phys.nd.edu/Phys171/lectures/smbh.html

so you can work out how large the object would have to be according to the accretion disk formula, and see for yourself it cannot correspond to an object weighing only 10^9 kg, especially not it if the objects's lightyears across.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 22/05/2005 12:06:00
We are not critising your calculation, just how accurate it is worth quoting the answer. 30% as I said earlier was just a number picked out of the air with no particular relevance to your calculation to make a point. However if you are going to be awkward I will:

You may be correct if you actually meant to calculate the schwartzchild radius of a black hole of mass 1billion +/- 1 solar mass - but I don't think there is any point unless you are considering building the black hole. I think what you meant was about 1 billion solar masses - in which case the implied precision is 1-2 sig fig, so although you may be technically correct, there is still no point in quoting so much precision.

If you read http://bustard.phys.nd.edu/Phys171/lectures/smbh.html carefully the 130 light year thing may be feeding into a smaller inner acretian disk - I would guess that the outer disk is not in hydrostatic equilibrium, and therefore doesn't fit with your equation. It is therefore not stable but I don't see why there should be a maximum size of a cloud of gas and dust that is gently falling into a black hole- I am not sure what the exact semantics are, but I would guess the problem is in the definition of accretian disk rather than the physics.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 22/05/2005 12:21:13
I'm sorry, but that's not the same kind of caveat's I'm reading from those texts, but instead only roaring enthusiasm - make that cock-certainty - for something that MUST be a black hole, cannot be something else, whatever the slight (!) differences with observational data.

So, suddenly its not strictly 'allowed' to use a math formula given by physicists as their best effort at calculating mass and size of a black hole, because we have to make allowances for all kinds of uncertainties and possible varations on a theme.

OK, fine by me, as long as we all know our place, I guess.

Funny how if someone postulates something more common than a black hole, like a variation on a neutron star, all hands are called on deck to burn heretics using the same formulas, in essence. Did you know the word heretic originally simply meant 'doubter', btw?

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 22/05/2005 16:33:39
relax, I am not complaining about your calculation just making a picky, but quite fundamental, point about how you should present the result...  

ps can I please not be on board the ship that burns heritics aboard - I find building fires somewhere less flamable ob balance a little better ;)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 22/05/2005 18:37:35
There's nothing fundamental in blowing up a supposed error by a order of 4, it's just erroneous, and your tenacity about it is honestly getting a bit tedious by now. If you did not mean to say it, or meant anything else, why react at all? Could have saved yourself the whole thing.

I really wish you were so tenacious about seeing the the importance of a difference between observation and theory when it concerns a difference of an order of 3, a 1000 times,  as observed, instead of going on about something maybe differing at 4 digits behind the comma.

One thing they even acknowledged in the bible, something with a mote in the other's eye  while missing out on the beam in your own.

This is not some political debate where it's your taken position that decides your acceptance of facts and figures or negative polls or not, it's science. Dammit.

Oh, I like to do my heretic-burning preferably aboard oil-tankers filled with the best high-octane stuff, btw. And then take the chopper out. What you take me for, barbaric?  [:)]

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: rosy on 22/05/2005 22:40:43
Oh honestly people.

Rob, if you're bored with this discussion no-one's making you take part.

Dave is making an entirely valid point. The correct use of precision and error analysis *is* in general terms very important, and not at all the editorial decision Rob dimisses it as being.

The error quoted is a measure of the author's confidence in the results and to quote any calculation to 9sf is to imply that you are absolutely confident that (assuming your theory is correct) the value of whatever you've calculated is correct to 0.000001% (or thereabouts). Which is obviously not the case in this context.

Clearly this doesn't really apply to a discussion forum when we all know you've copied and pasted out of a calculator and perhaps in this context my small mickey-taking was a bit childish.

quote:
I really wish you were so tenacious about seeing the the importance of a difference between observation and theory when it concerns a difference of an order of 3, a 1000 times, as observed, instead of going on about something maybe differing at 4 digits behind the comma.

Just as a matter of interest (and because if you've already said further up the thread I can't find it) where are you quoting this famous supposed-black-hole from? A research paper? A popular science magazine? A newspaper? A random person's website? I can't work out how bothered I should be...
If this comes from a supposedly reputable source someone apparently deserves to lose their job. If not, well, to be honest I can't get all that excited about people accepting it as probably true, because to expect most people to have any concept of the physical implications of anything that big strikes me as frankly silly. That's not to say I'd apply the same logic to a comparable mistake in a field such as chemistry or biology because an equivalent mistake could in that instance influence the decision of John or Jane Public on something that was actually relevant to their lives.

quote:
Oh, I like to do my heretic-burning preferably aboard oil-tankers filled with the best high-octane stuff, btw. And then take the chopper out. What you take me for, barbaric?


Eh? I thought you were suggesting you were the heretic, in which case surely once someone's lit the bonfire what it sets fire to (other than yourself) is of purely academic interest to the doubter.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 23/05/2005 09:43:28
quote:
Originally posted by rosy

Oh honestly people.

Rob, if you're bored with this discussion no-one's making you take part.

Clearly this doesn't really apply to a discussion forum when we all know you've copied and pasted out of a calculator and perhaps in this context my small mickey-taking was a bit childish.

I can't work out how bothered I should be...

If not, well, to be honest I can't get all that excited ....

Eh? I thought you were suggesting...



Maybe you should make fewer assumptions, be less bothered, and not get all that excited, then?

If you have any questions as to the material discussed, read again.

Furthermore, I'd say Dave is perfectly capable of answering for himself, don't you think?

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: rosy on 23/05/2005 10:56:36
quote:
Furthermore, I'd say Dave is perfectly capable of answering for himself, don't you think?

More than capable. However, if I choose to make a point in an open discussion and to observe in passing that mainly what I'm saying is in agreement with someone who's just posted that strikes me as fair enough.

quote:
Maybe you should make fewer assumptions, be less bothered, and not get all that excited, then?

I think possibly you didn't understand my question. Or misinterpret how aggressive I'm not intending to be. Or you're just being rude. I can't tell (the disagvantages of a text forum).
It was a question, where did the original erroneous statement about the black hole come from? Because it seems to me relevant in terms of to what extent it's reasonable to describe it as scientific dogma, which was your original point. And having scanned the thread for links again I still can't find it.

However. As I've only stuck with it this far because I was trying to work out whether I agreed with your basic point or not, and as I'm not nearer an answer and seem to have annoyed you, I shan't pose any further questions and will merely apologise for taking up your time.
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 23/05/2005 21:24:49
Look, I'm butting out of this thread after this remark, so don't bother any further:

I said:
quote:

Anyway: nice experiment to show how even scientists can fall for dogma: any scientist willing to conduct it with me by answering the following question:

A black hole has been reported sitting at the center of a galaxy close to 450 million lighyears away, and it has a size calculated to be around 3,5 to 5 lightyears in diameter.

Yet, there is something totally impossibly wrong with it. Something that defies our astronomic common sense.

Now, what question would a respectable scientist - being impervious to dogma - ask first, before investigating the matter any further?




So this is clearly no reference to a direct article, but an example of what I called 'pulp science', as in 'spot the loony' for a self-respecting scientist kind of 'exam' to see if you smelled a rat somewhere.

Later I DID give two links with two reports that are of that ilk , more or less. One speaks of a 'solar system size' black hole of a billion solar masses which I find rubbish, and another that claimed a 130 lightyear accretion disk, which hides an equal improbable element, but less clearly so, or with a lot of unstated provisos. More accurate numbers would be 3.6 million for the one at our galaxy, with an outer accretion disk of 15.3 lightyears, give or take a trillion miles.

The calculation boiled down to 8.86109896 × 10^09 kilometers, and depending on where you cut off (2, 4 or no decimals cut off) it becomes 0.000936522742, 0.000936628444, or 0.000936638904 lightyear as I gave earlier. Take your pick, nothing much changes.

So you misread an experiment showing how people can get carried away following dogma, as an real article, missed the real articles tho, made a valid point about precision, which David hastily misread in all likelihood - on rereading-  and from there the whole thing degraded into a discussion strictly about supermassive black holes and burning heretics.

The funny thing is I don't believe in either, btw. But if you do something, do it well.

'Misinterpreting how agressive I'm not intending to be' gets the QT award 2005, tho.

On telling emotions from text-only forums: think how a blacksmith tests for quality in his steel  by making a clear spark fly off it. That speaks volumes to the trained eye, as long as the spark does not end up in said eye, ofcourse. [:)]

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Tronix on 23/05/2005 23:44:16
Well, maybe i should check this thread more often :)

As sharp as the argument was, the debate over the plausibility of such a huge black hole did bring up another point about science and religion.

Chimera here was proposing that a black hole of this size is impossible, with Mathematics to prove it. Christians, when debating the divinity of Jesus, also look to the bible and its tales of his miraculous actions to prove his divinity. But, in both cases, physcial observation cannot be used. Jesus is 2000 years dead, and should a black hole of that size exsist, we have yet to find, or be aware, of it. Thus, nothing completly concrete, but regardless, heated debates.

And there even seems, ever so slightly, that there is dogma in science. chimera made an excellent point with his hypothesis for his social experiment, the "pulp science" dogma.

Now, keep in mind when i say dogam, i mean webster's definition of dogma being "tenets, beliefs, and/or doctrines, collectively". Dogma has a negative connotation, but since i dont want to beat around it, im just mentioning this now. I think the defintion of dogma we are used to is "an positve, arrogant assertion of opinion" defintion. This is not the one i mean.  

returning to point, the pulp dogma chimera pointed out was the acceptance of fully wild phenomenon as plausible, merely out of ignorance, and that Joe Schmo's average exposure to science is through Lara Croft, Star Wars, and a few high school classes that he quickly forgot. In deed, this can happen, and does. From my own observation, im seem to be quite a victim to it, drawn to the possiblity that science can bring, not watching for and even avioding its borders.

but also, i think there is the other end of that dogma, a sort of "Mathmatical Evangelicalism". The laws of physics, paticularly the laws of Quantum Physics, are treading on brittle ground, for that they are logic based on finite observation. Numbers like pi were and are based on physical circumstances here in our world, and alot of our astrnomical knowledge is based on telescope observations. The accuarcy of mathematics is astounding, but being based on finite constants, it has only so many possible outputs. Thus, we have impossiblities in our science, and should it turn out that these things ARE possible, reams of mathematical text would have to be recalled and burned, which would maen the life's works of hundreds of living mathmaticians would be for not. Chimera, with no offense intened, seems to be following this set of beliefs. Thus no one is immune to dogma, at least not until they realize it. Still, how would one define his/her world without seperating what is possible for what is not, or at least is entirely unlikely.

my point is again that religion and science has similarities, including beliefs to defend, and (not to beat this to death), faith to give strength to that defense, and even logic and reasons to defend them with.

Post on in piece my friends. Im mean pieces, I MEAN PEACE! :D    


--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 24/05/2005 11:09:39
quote:
Originally posted by Tronix
Chimera, with no offense intened, seems to be following this set of beliefs.



No offence taken, altho I only believe what I see, and sometimes not even that. Any rules of thumb resulting from that are my own, and I would not even try to impose those on others, since I could not even begin to formulate them. There are no permanent good answers in my book, only recurring good questions.

It seems indeed to be the case that mathematical abstraction has been taken quite a bit too far, with desastrous results looming both for science and our little human collective. Turning that back, or burning the results, as you seem to fear, is not on my agenda.

Finding a way to create a bridge between what goes under the guise of 'common sense' and those possibly inappropriately applied 'infinity'-based solutions, is. I know that sounds pretty quixotic, but Dutch just have this wind-mill hangup, so please indulge me.

OT:

Think on the other hand of the dangers of a runaway belief system applied to the blessings of science, unchecked. It might be okidoki as long as everything is on the up, but as soon as serious disaster occurs, people in the past not only blamed their 'priests', but occasionally inflicted grievous bodily harm upon them, too.

So if Joe Schmoe ever get seriously 'disappointed' with some break-away avian flu disaster, or Hawking retracting everything he's ever claimed to know, things like that, real faith-breakers or stuff scientists could be actually blamed for, be very wary of the possible outcome. You're having it good, very, very good.

Mussolini never imagined those same cheering crowds to simply hang his dead and charred body upside down from a lamppost, either, after a similar disastrous job evaluation session.

Getting 'fired' would be the least of your worries. So keeping your customers' expectations as to your product performance a bit realistic is in your own long-term interest, I think. And also realism about your own role in this. If it walks like a priest, talks like a priest etc, so don't think you can then suddenly renege on any such behaviour - breaking the unwritten contract - it will only be considered aggravating circumstance at payback time. People have a violent hate for false prophets, remember.

And whether you agree with that epithet or not will be quite immaterial by that time.

[hey, summer's breaking out here - off to the lakes for some serious melanine experimenting, you guys have fun too...][8D]

[typo]
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 24/05/2005 11:48:02
When you say that Quantum physics is getting too mathematical and not grounded in experiment this is a bit like saying that all footballers are paid too much. Quantum mechanics affects just about everything in physics, you may only hear about the string theorists, but there are tens of thousands of scientists out there using Quantum mechanics to investigate basic physics, and build things using it.

 Even if the whole theoretical basis was overturned the tranistors, lasers, new materials, all of chemistry and all the experimental results that have been obtained would still exist. It is probable if nothing else because there is a huge literature of experimets that quantum mechanics explains, that any change will be a subtle one at high energies, low temperatures or other extreme conditions a bit like relativity is to newtonian physics.

It would probably  annoy/affect some hard core theorists, but everyone else would either be able to work around it.

The deeper socialogical point is interesting. I think that rebellion against science have been happening regularly ever since poison gas was invented in WW1. There is a problem that science is now so huge that the practitioners have a hard time getting an overview let alone the public, but I think this is indicative of the univers being complex and the limitations of common sense rather than of science. It may mean that science needs a careful (not too enthusiastic) PR strategy, but anything more radical would start to stop it being science...
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: rosy on 24/05/2005 12:11:51
If people are "believing" in the science rather than the scientific method that put it there, then there are clearly potential pitfalls. For science to continue as science we need to all be aware that there is a theoretical possibility of any of it being wrong.
If this were drummed into kids in school then we could move on with our lives from there using the predictions science gives us and occasionally, without too much fuss, revising bits of exactly how we think it works.
Ah well... it's a nice idea.

I shouldn't have thought that avian flu would turn the world population against scienctists, because that really is just a natural phenomenon... zoonoses happen, we have to deal with them. Possibly cheap air travel isn't going to help but that's hardly the scientists' fault at this stage.
If a microbiologist caused an equilvalent epidemic by inadvertantly releasing some organism they were uing for research into the environment it might be different of course. Which is why they're pretty damn careful not to (use bugs with an absolute requirement for some rare amino acid, for example, so that they won't grow elsewhere.

I don't rate your chances of tying in even the quantisation of energy with common sense, let alone the further reaches of physics... on a macro scale quantisation just makes my head hurt.... but all the same, it provides a damn good explaner/predictor of exactly how really very complicated molecules will react! Not to mention the spectroscopy which allows us to figure out what we've got/made.

Mind you, if you do find a way let me know 'cos it might make my life easier!!!!
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 24/05/2005 21:40:49
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts


[1] When you say that Quantum physics is getting too mathematical and not grounded in experiment this is a bit like saying that all footballers are paid too much. [........]

[2] The deeper socialogical point is interesting. I think that rebellion against science have been happening regularly ever since poison gas was invented in WW1.



Good weather's arriving a day late - [:(] but it'll be 25 C+ tomorrow. Yes.

[1] When I say 'inappropriately applied', I do not mean 'wrong', just like when I say solutions are 'nonsenical' they are not 'ridiculous', just that they do not make sense. They are not intuitive, or flow from normal experience. They are not connected to the rest of our 'body of knowledge'. Yet they should be all of the above, and letting it fester as it currently is for whatever reason is bad, simply put. Such a bridge as I describe is of much more importance to us as humanity than just as some nice feather in our cap, if only we could somehow fix it at some point in time, as some minor afterthought. Oh, much more than that. Such a vacuum area between bodies of knowledge can prove to be very costly to our development in the longrun, and lead to all kinds of possible things going haywire in our psychological self-image.

[2] Maybe you should read the 'life story' of Fritz Haber. He not only invented poison gas in the illusion it would perhaps shorten the war, but which instead lead to his wife Clara Immerwahr killing herself, on the eve of the Battle of Verdun, in protest. He's also responsible for our ability to bind nitrogen so efficiently you can say at least 2 billion people on this planet would not be alive without him - for simple lack of food.

So there is a difference in your own idea of responsibilities, and what history eventually makes of it, I'd say.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 24/05/2005 22:13:19
quote:
Originally posted by rosy



[1]I shouldn't have thought that avian flu would turn the world population against scienctists, because that really is just a natural phenomenon... zoonoses happen, we have to deal with them. Possibly cheap air travel isn't going to help but that's hardly the scientists' fault at this stage.

[2] I don't rate your chances of tying in even the quantisation of energy with common sense, let alone the further reaches of physics... on a macro scale quantisation just makes my head hurt.... but all the same, it provides a damn good explaner/predictor of exactly how really very complicated molecules will react! Not to mention the spectroscopy which allows us to figure out what we've got/made.

Mind you, if you do find a way let me know 'cos it might make my life easier!!!!



[1] It's more the expectations: you are a nurse in a village with a shortage of medicine trying to help desperate people with dying children in their arms and coughing in your general direction, not really believing the small supply of drugs you have there, you are probably keeping the rest for your rich white friends, they just read about that horrible vaccination error where 5000 got the real McCoy by mistake, they are pissed off and you are available. Say again?

Who invented those airplanes btw, the economy is in ruins because of foreign technology, the WTO is a.... need I continue? Stuff like that can blow up in your face in minutes. It's not your fault they expect all that from you, I know. Just don't think they are very sympathetic to your erudite reasoning at this precise junction in their lives.

[2] As I said in my earlier post, and also to Dave, I don't think QM is wrong, and that trying to bridge it with classical stuff is anything but quixotic. I just think that you are giving the best reason here that I tried to expound earlier, it only makes your head ache, and it does not sound as if you're really happy with it, if it weren't for the results.

My view on the whole matter in a nutshell: our classical world works via Newton, because Newtons laws are only the fuzzified detritus of the more basic QM ones. Only problem, you cannot draw a straight line between the probabilistic results of QM and the fuzzy vagueness that is the classical world. No way Jose.

Oh, the QM results work, the theories are fine, incomprehensible at times and counterintuitive, but fine. Yet there is no single way to backtrack the results via any known classical mechanism. Our failure to come up with that is our single biggest defeat so far. We're stuck with QM statistics and high speed particle chases, yikes. And worse, we have theorems that tell us that this is going to stay this way, by act of Law.

So I'm trying to tackle this on several fronts at the same time, by combining old and new theories in new ways, finding loopholes in supposedly uncrackable logic, and just plain dogged stubbornness.

In QCD you have three quarks that can come in 8 colours. Now how can you marry the idea of three-valued logic with an eight-valued one in an exact way? Well, one way would be to take the cosine of 20 degrees on the first 'circle' or quark, 40 on the second, and 80 on the third and multiply and see it equals exactly 1/8th. Mmm.



Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: daveshorts on 24/05/2005 22:57:37
What do you mean by not being able to draw a line from QM to classical physics? If you look at most big things with QM they behave as they would with classical mechanics. In the same way that you can approximate relativity to newtonian mechanics in some circumstances, or QM to wave theories of light to optics... (We can't do QM to General relativity, as this is keeping lots of theorists busy atm) We can't go the other way, but why should we be able to? we can't with any other part of physics...

QM is probably involves more maths to do this but it still works. You can use classical analogies for bits of QM, wave analogies are very useful, and for what I do balls rolling down bumpy slopes happen to come out of the maths, but we are fundamentally creatures of the classical world rather than the quantum one so it is going to be hard work. I wonder whether you could build a version of Quake working on bits of QM and bring up a generation of kids to whom microscopic scale behaviours are more intuitive.

I think there are various other formulations of QM that produce the same maths but involve different interpretations of what is going on, which may be more to your taste..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: chimera on 24/05/2005 23:44:56
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts



[1] What do you mean by not being able to draw a line from QM to classical physics? If you look at most big things with QM they behave as they would with classical mechanics. In the same way that you can approximate relativity to newtonian mechanics in some circumstances, or QM to wave theories of light to optics... (We can't do QM to General relativity, as this is keeping lots of theorists busy atm) We can't go the other way, but why should we be able to? we can't with any other part of physics...

[2] QM is probably involves more maths to do this but it still works. You can use classical analogies for bits of QM, wave analogies are very useful, and for what I do balls rolling down bumpy slopes happen to come out of the maths, but we are fundamentally creatures of the classical world rather than the quantum one so it is going to be hard work. I wonder whether you could build a version of Quake working on bits of QM and bring up a generation of kids to whom microscopic scale behaviours are more intuitive.

[3] I think there are various other formulations of QM that produce the same maths but involve different interpretations of what is going on, which may be more to your taste..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics



[1] Oh, I know you don't even need QM for most RL things. Some QM math does get into trouble on larger scales, tho. Infinities do that.

Marrying QM to GR is easy. Just solve gravity, and that's that. [:D]

[2] Wouldn't that be cruel and unusual punishment at this point in time? Anyway, spawning/ teleporting and being able to shoot improbable voltages at your opponent doesn't really sound Newton to me... know any games or educational stuff that actually uses such things? I've only seen some QM physics/chemical modeling stuff, mostly highly DIY Linux/Unix gear, not exactly for noobs, an Alpine learning curve, and more toggles than your average nuclear powerplant. Real fun stuff.

[3] Cool page. Shame they don't have more on Bell and 'hidden variables'. Know any good ones on that? Remember something about a guy called DeWitt or so who'd done work on that,  should get into that, too. Wonder how that theorem works out with what's essentially trinary logic, not binary, just have a suspicion it does not really 'covers all bases' on that, which could be really wicked.

added: Could you tell me more about what you do that resembles balls rolling down bumpy slopes, I just remembered reading something once about Pachinko (Japanese falling marble game) and QM, can't remember exactly what, tho....
Title: Re: Science vs. Religion
Post by: Tronix on 02/06/2005 01:57:14
See, this is why im just an ecologist/enigneer (or at least going to be) so it not my job to have a headache. but their fun to have willingly.

I have seen alot of talk about quantum physics, and have seen almost all of the NOVA specials about the vast powers at work in physics and almost all the cool models for explianing it in layman terms, and it has seemed to come a long way from Einstien and Newton.

But i dont know if i mentioned this, but QM does seem to have a correlation with relgion in that its a far reaching explination of things. Religions explian the universe in simple and often mythical means, of great gods battling in the end of the world or the Quinetessintial arch-woman watching over us as a madien, mother, and crone all at one and one at a time (which is kinda complecated, in a way, come to think of it), and QM explains the forces and machinations of the world with vastly complex and yet stupifiyingly simple and obvious formulae. WIth Unified Field Theroy, One forumula to explain it all, and one book to explain the ways of life.

but im starting to bash this argument to bits, so a bit of fun digression, Einstien took his quest for two part unified field theory to his grave, and now we have added strong and weak atomic forces to this equation. Personally, i think we should continue to add more quintessial factors, like maybe transdimensional forces. If string theory is right in saying that their is more than one dimension, whom are we to assume that these dimesnions follow our rules? what if they have no atoms? no magnetism? no (and i really mean not a bit of) gravity? A world with no permanent structure? And what of more philisophical forces. if no one confirms the exsistance of a chair, is it really there? what of belief itself? is it a "force"? I think these questions shoudl be asked, and no assumption made that the universe behaves how are math predicts, becuase though forumlas may (but not likely) are perfect, the numbers we put in, and the things we base them off of are rather limted. we only knwo what physical forces happen on planet earth, and we havent bothered to look for others in other places becuase of that. what if the geothermal dynamics on mars are completly different than anythign we dared to calculate. what if we find something as weird as gravitional "layers" on jupiter, or that or wind forumla are perpendicuarly screwed up on uranus. Time may even flow different in different places, or the one im a biggest proponent on, that we are flying or hyperdrive or wormhold dirve or panckae drive spaceships through a nebula, and suddenly slam into a big ass vaccum whale or some other creature that doesnt need air or gravity to survive, just the gas feeding bacteria in the "cool" parts of the nebula. Life always seems to find a way, maybe even into outer space. To recap, i dont thin we should assume we have the big picuture, and we should be looking to prove ourselves wrong in alot of cases. but thats kooky me.

well, that was refreshing.

--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...