Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Europa on 25/07/2021 00:07:36
-
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/19/science-religion-not-be-questioned
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201710/is-science-religion
Well, as we all know, science doesn't work like that. Scientific research gets trapped in more box canyons than the Lone Ranger; does more U-turns than the average government; falls to certain death more often than Wile E Coyote; has more women in it than you might at first imagine (though probably not nearly enough); and generally gets the wrong answer.
-
Go away troll.
-
Science isn't a religion. In my experience (which obviously is not all-inclusive) many of those who claim that it is are mostly complaining about things that they don't understand properly. They think one or more of the widely-accepted theories of our time have obvious flaws that should render them obsolete and thus believe that those scientists who accept them are being irrational. In reality, those critics very often have misunderstandings which lead them to that conclusion. There are vast swaths of misinformation spread across the Internet about relativity, the Big Bang theory and evolution in particular that have convinced people who don't know better of their falsehood.
-
Well, as we all know, science doesn't work like that. ..... and generally gets the wrong answer.
Science is far better at getting right answers than a religion. Those answers are also consistent and can be used to build devices like the one we are using to post these messages.
Science is continually updating itself based on new information which religion does not. That updating is often a source of confused thinking by those who see it as science continually getting it wrong.
Issac Newton made some excellent observations and derived very useful mathematical descriptions of those observations, the fact that we now have more accurate descriptions does not nullify the usefulness of those original descriptions and it is right that they should be defended against misinformation from pseudoscientists who, for example, don’t even understand Newton’s theories.
Science advances by speculation (religion does not) and that is why we have a New Theories section for those who wish to speculate and sections like this for those wishing to understand currently accepted ideas.
-
Religion: the business of answering questions and telling people how to live, with no supporting evidence.
Science: the business of questioning the answers and finding out how life works, based entirely on evidence.
I've just spotted a must-have T-shirt: "every disaster movie begins with someone ignoring a scientist"
-
People support science because ti saves lives.
The difference is simple.
In science, if an experiment shows that the textbook is wrong, you change the book and publicise the outcome.
In religion if an experiment shows that the textbook is wrong you ban the experiment and lie about the outcome.
What I'd like to know, and perhaps the OP can help me here, is why people don't see that difference?
-
Go away troll.
Actually, I think it's a good thing to discuss this. It can help clear up some misconceptions for those that are willing to learn the difference.
-
for those that are willing to learn the difference.
He's not.
-
If the Earth blew up as you read this and all knowledge of any religion is eradicated then those religions are gone forever.All the rules that contain and enable the universe remain.Science .
-
Genuine science is based on HONEST (speculative) умозрительные reasoning. And умозрение is not speculation as it unfortunately sounds in English, but it is constructive provisions on which further experiments are based. Woe to those who separate science from Love and Truth, and even more so to those who assert that honest science does not exist. And yes, I am a representative of the Russian Classical Mathematical School and I am ready, if anyone wants to, constructively discuss a lot, while the pragmatism of thoughts and the absence in them, in a sense, arbitrariness in science is a plus to honesty, and not a minus, like many, unfortunately are misunderstood.
-
Because the world is full of nutters who think God talks to them in their head.
-
Would a better question be, "Given that religion is not based in fact, why is it defended as if it is?"?
-
Sex. Money. Power.
-
Fame...Fortune...Drugs...etc etc.
(Nodal points)
What is the Root?
Pleasure?
Saint Mother Teresa was Selfish?
Her work pleased her.
PS - Wats wit da constant putting of
" Science vs Religion " ???
Who spreadz al dis BS hatred?
-
Didn't know. How can U tell? Why was s/he banned?
He or she? for talking too much rubbish and posting inappropriate images.
-
I suppose this OP is over & out.
Good Riddance!
👍
But i feel like making a statement...
In School, when my Teacher said 1 + 1 = 2.
I never Objected.
Our Solar System then, had Nine planets.
I could hardly remember the names, but still, i never Objected.
The Earth is Round.
I never flew outta space in school.
But I Believed!
For me, it started with Blind Faith... Believing whatever my Teachers taught me.
& Now i am in a position to logically analyse n realize all that as True!
Why do Religious folks start doubting their GOD?
Why do they want GOD to be logical & predictable... isn't GOD supposed to Act in mysterious ways.
Ps - Never ever in a Book of Science did i read " G is non existent ".
And most Holy Books showcase Divinity can bend & break the " Laws of Physics ".
Why are both these Streams of knowledge so Opposed to each other?
I mean, can't a gentle catholic man be a computer software programmer?
Can't a Quantum Physics professor Not visit a church n pray n ask for blessings n wish for world peace?
There seems to be a Group of Intolerant & Uncompromising Barbaric Individuals who seem to be creating all the Ruckus.
☹️
GOD would ideally want US(children) to do Well.
😇
SCIENCE is the Key towards Prosperity.
🧐
So whoos havin a prob wit all dis?
👿
-
Can't a Quantum Physics professor Not visit a church n pray n ask for blessings n wish for world peace?
To do so would violate his fundamental religious belief that his god created the world and all within it.
I don't make things that don't work, and I'm only a human tinkerer with limited skills, knowledge and resources. An omniscient, omnipotent being that can create anything out of nothing, surely wouldn't create a world that was not to his liking?
Every prayer for healing, peace, or indeed any change in the status quo, is telling said Being that he has screwed up and is not fit to be worshipped. Prayer is the denial of faith.
-
Why do Religious folks start doubting their GOD?
Why do they want GOD to be logical & predictable... isn't GOD supposed to Act in mysterious ways.
I think God knew that his creation would have problems as a result of us receiving free will prayer can help correct our bad decisions.
-
I think God knew that his creation would have problems
I don't build things with obvious flaws. I'd expect better of an omnipotent and omniscient creator.
If she just wanted to see what happens when you let idiots run free, there's no point in praying for her to change anything, and "correcting your own decisions" would be contrary to the Will of God, and therefore a Sin.
-
I don't believe science, politics, or God is a religion. I think all three institutions are places to rest our hopes and desires. Most people have good intentions whether looking to their leaders or the leaders looking to us. If every aspect of life run smooth and perfect we would have little to discuss on few topics. Mistakes and bad decisions are a part of life and act as a resistance to strengthen and learn as a bodybuilder pushes weight to build muscle mental mistakes give our mind resistance to learn. The human brain is no computer it is a self developing and learning miracle it arrives in the world with a small bit of ability how to feed and how to get attention the brain is the steering wheel for the vehicle that it has. Science, politics, and God are tools that we can draw on to develop learn and negotiate life with. I believe all three of the mentioned powers are very real and very useful to those that choose to utilize them in their lives.
-
Science is a process, not a power.
Politics is what goes wrong when you use the term "leader" instead of "representative".
God is anything the speaker wants it to be, until you ask him to prove it.
-
leader" instead of "representative".
I think in all three cases leadership is a requirement to represent their institution. Power is in the hands of the leaders to establish a confident following. If we believe and obey then we are succumbing to the power of the authority.
-
I spent many years as a trade union rep. Never a leader, always a spokesman. I was mandated by my members to do certain things and only to work in their best interests, not mine, the union's, or the Socialist Cause, and I could be recalled and replaced at any time if I took an initiative that was not seen as representative of or beneficial to my members. "Consultation" was prior and genuine, not policy-driven evidence-making.
"Authority" is a dirty word in science. "Authoritative" may describe a good textbook, but like showbiz, it's only as good as its last gig and the ultimate authority is the next experimental result. (One should also beware of "consensus" - it's no substitute for the truth!)
Representatives should be authoritative. That is, they should be well briefed on the facts of the matter and the wishes of those they represent. They should also be eloquent and persuasive, but their job is to persuade everyone else to act in their constituents' interest, not to presume the authority to persuade their constituents that the Party, church, or whatever, is right.
And it's important to distinguish between representing your constituents (literally, re-presenting an argument to a different audience) and being representative of your constituents (i.e. an average bloke). Sadly, there is increasing emphasis on the latter, so politics is increasingly a matter of anointed leaders and complicit followers rather than constituency representatives controlling the executive.
-
Until later in school 1+1 became 10. It equaling 2 assumed a base that the teacher and the rest of us took for granted until later when other bases were considered.
Er, no. One plus one equals two in any base (integer progression along a number line) , but the base determines how you represent two numerically. Up to a point, that is. There are variants of binary representation such as Cyclic Gray Code where
111111 + 1 = 111110
-
I have the hex multiplication tables memorized from using it so much. 7x5=23 and all that...
Do you muddle Halloween with Christmas?
31oct = 25 dec
This whole thread is silly.
Science is defended with evidence.
So it is not defended as though it were a religion.
-
Nah,
-
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/19/science-religion-not-be-questioned
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201710/is-science-religion
Well, as we all know, science doesn't work like that. Scientific research gets trapped in more box canyons than the Lone Ranger; does more U-turns than the average government; falls to certain death more often than Wile E Coyote; has more women in it than you might at first imagine (though probably not nearly enough); and generally gets the wrong answer.
Let's see what the referred articles say.
Many people think that science is just another religion, no better than their own. Their reasoning is apparently something along these lines: “Beliefs about the unseen world are based entirely on received truth—truth that is known to be right because it is felt to be right. All and only religions offer an opinion about the unseen world. Science offers such an opinion. So science is a religion.” (For those interested in the technical, this argument is valid, so if its premises are true, so is its conclusion. The second premise is false, however.)
Let's clarify what's meant by unseen. Is it something we can't see with naked eyes? Or something we can't sense without tools? Are viruses unseen in this context? What about exoplanets?
I think we need to distinguish between scientific principles and scientific theories. Scientific theories come and go with time, depending on latest observations, experimental results, and advancement of instrumentation technology. But they're all based on the same scientific principles.
-
A very depressed undergraduate once wrote about his studies in English Literature: "Volumes of bad English written about a few pages of good English".
Thus with most writing about science.
Science is no more or less than the recursive process of observe, hypothesise, predict, observe. It doesn't require any defence beyond the fact that it often produces robust hypotheses and useful predictions, and we are brought up to distrust anything that doesn't - apart, of course, from religion.
-
I think when people say science is a religion they are simply trying to make out science is false. When people say a belief in God is a religion there may be more strength in this claim. At this point in time we have only the human race to decipher and study the universe around us yes many mistakes have been made and over time we become more and more clear of the fundamental state that we live in. If science makes a mistake we can correct it in real time as updates become available but a belief in God and the bible remain stuck in time. So science and a belief in God will always require faith the only difference is one is set in stone and the other is quite malleable. The only real difference in this state of affairs is that we need to unite each point of view as the art of the creation may be one and the same.
-
How can a process be "false"? It's only slightly more abstract than a lump of rock.
So science and a belief in God will always require faith
Utter rubbish. The essence of the scientific process is a refusal to accept any hypothesis that does not generate consistently accurate predictions - the diametric opposite of faith.
-
Let's see what the referred articles say.
...truth that is known to be right because it is felt to be right. ...
This is about as opposite of science as you can get. So one needs to bend the science peg significantly to cram it through this square hole.
Let's clarify what's meant by unseen. Is it something we can't see with naked eyes?
Anything for which there is no empirical evidence.
But [theories] are all based on the same scientific principles.
No they're not. Quantum theory for instance has cast doubt on a number of scientific principles and is therefore not based on them.
-
So science and a belief in God will always require faith
Utter rubbish.
OK, you get in the rocket and go to Mars without faith in science. Either that means your hoping or suicidal.
-
OK, you get in the rocket and go to Mars without faith in science. Either that means your hoping or suicidal.
That is a just a semantic argument.
The point is faith in God or religion is the belief in something without evidence. Science is believing based only on evidence.
For instance; saying I have faith that when I drop a rock it will fall to the ground is quite different than saying I have faith that God is watching over me.
-
For instance; saying I have faith that when I drop a rock it will fall to the ground is quite different than saying I have faith that God is watching over me.
Not so, as faith is based on knowing and trust.
-
Not so, as faith is based on knowing and trust.
Religious fait is based on not actually knowing anything.
-
Anything for which there is no empirical evidence.
Which of these things have empirical evidence?
DNA, atom, electron, photon, gluon, graviton, anyon, tachyon, dark matter, dark energy, magnetic monopole?
what about multiverse and string theories?
-
Not so, as faith is based on knowing and trust.
Religious fait is based on not actually knowing anything.
If you don't know you have no faith you can not trust.
-
Religious fait
Fait means the truth.
-
Which of these things have empirical evidence?
DNA, atom, electron, photon, gluon, graviton, anyon, tachyon, dark matter, dark energy, magnetic monopole?
what about multiverse and string theories?
Models involving the first 5 have useful explanatory and predictive capabilities. The rest are not inconsistent with observation (apart, probably, from the magnetic monopole) and might at least be explanatory or predictive but their predictions are inexplicit and untested. There is some discussion as to whether string theory is predictive or testable, but the fact that it is intended to be at least predictive puts it in the realm of scientific endeavour.
-
OK, you get in the rocket and go to Mars without faith in science.
No. Experience has shown that Newtonian mechanics predicts how rockets move, and all the chemistry we have ever done suggests that the next one will work pretty much the same as the last one. If either or both hypotheses is falsified by our experiment, we will have learned something new and interesting.
Faith says that we know all about Mars so there's no point in going. A scientific enquiry starts with the presumption that there are things we don't know, so we do an experiment by going there and having a good look round.
-
No they're not. Quantum theory for instance has cast doubt on a number of scientific principles and is therefore not based on them.
Quantum theory has cast doubt on a number of classical scientific principles. To keep calling it science, it must comply with scientific principles, whether it's classical or not. Otherwise any speculation can claim to be scientific.
-
faith is based on knowing and trust.
If you would actually look up the definition, you'd see that it was based on not knowing, or more precisely, in things for which there is no evidence.
Which of these things have empirical evidence?
DNA, atom, electron, photon, gluon, graviton, anyon, tachyon, dark matter, dark energy, magnetic monopole?
what about multiverse and string theories?
The bolded ones have been detected. I'm unaware of a magnetic monopole having ever been found.
Gluons and gravitons are as Alan says: part of models with predictive capabilities.
Tachyons (and negative mass objects which remain valid since Newton's time) are valid solutions to Einstein's field equations, but none has ever been detected. Nothing in the theory demands that all valid solutions must have real world examples.
There's plenty of empirical evidence for dark energy and dark matter. The theories that posit them fit the observations better than any alternative theories. But that doesn't mean you can stick a bit of it on a microscope slide and take a picture of it. That goes for most of the other things as well.
Quantum theory has cast doubt on a number of classical scientific principles. To keep calling it science, it must comply with scientific principles, whether it's classical or not. Otherwise any speculation can claim to be scientific.
Even if those principles have been proven to be not all valid?
-
If you would actually look up the definition, you'd see that it was based on not knowing, or more precisely, in things for which there is no evidence.
I think you will find that there is faith in knowing if I have faith in something then I know it is true. eg. The scientist said the rocket will work I believe that is true I have faith in the scientist and the rocket.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
In sociology of scientific knowledge, Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views.
This was formulated by Max Planck:[1]
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97
Informally, this is often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time".
Eventually, the ultimate arbiter of disputes is the existence of conscious entities. It brings us back to Descartes' cogito ergo sum.
-
Even if those principles have been proven to be not all valid?
Does quantum theory follow any principle that justifies it to be called science? What makes it different from non-scientific theories and pseudoscience?
-
another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Is this to say the truth is in the eye of the beholder.
-
Have faith my little one for I tell you the truth. Truth Truth Truth....
-
Does quantum theory follow any principle that justifies it to be called science?
From the wiki page on scientific theory:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.
Quantum theory is very testable and has been arguably the most successful theory ever. No principles need to be followed at all for it to meet this designation, only that the scientific method is followed.
The theory actually makes a hash of several classical scientific principles, demonstrating that fundamentally the universe does not operate under classical laws.
What makes it different from non-scientific theories and pseudoscience?
Neither of those meet the definition above. Neither is based on the scientific method, whereas scientific theories are. The difference between these two is that the latter makes claims to be scientific, and the former does not.
I had not answered all the items on your prior list.
As for string theory, it remains arguably designated as hypothesis since it makes no actual predictions to date.
No theory of which I'm aware posits a multiverse since pretty much by definition it is untestable.
It is purely a philosophical topic, not a scientific one. MWI (despite its name and numerous pop misconceptions) does not posit a multiverse, nor does it claim to be a theory, merely an interpretation of one, just like any other valid interpretation of quantum theory.
J-T has gone into full proof-by-repeated-assertion mode.
-
Quantum theory is very testable and has been arguably the most successful theory ever. No principles need to be followed at all for it to meet this designation, only that the scientific method is followed.
So, even quantum theory has to comply with falsifiable principle. Otherwise, it won't be testable, which would make it unscientific.
-
The theory actually makes a hash of several classical scientific principles, demonstrating that fundamentally the universe does not operate under classical laws.
Alternatively, we've made some mistakes in interpreting some experimental results. We may simply haven't found proper assumptions that would make those results more sensible and consistent with observations on macroscopic objects, just yet.
-
another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Is this to say the truth is in the eye of the beholder.
No. The Planck's principle I quoted above doesn't talk about the truth. But the acceptance of scientific theories.
They are memes existing in people's minds. Their survival depends on their ability to help us as their media survive. Some minor mistakes may be tolerable. But if they're persistent, someday they would lead us to make wrong decisions, which in turn could cause our extinction, which is also theirs.
-
So, even quantum theory has to comply with falsifiable principle. Otherwise, it won't be testable, which would make it unscientific.
Agree. That principle seems to be implicit in the definition of a scientific theory, and is why string 'theory' is not yet in that class.
Alternatively, we've made some mistakes in interpreting some experimental results. We may simply haven't found proper assumptions that would make those results more sensible and consistent with observations on macroscopic objects, just yet.
The predictions made by quantum theory are fully consistent with observations on macroscopic objects. Classical physics can be derived from quantum physics, but not v-v.
-
Does quantum theory follow any principle that justifies it to be called science? What makes it different from non-scientific theories and pseudoscience?
It is based on observation, explains observations, and so far accurately predicts further observations. The day it doesn't, we'll have to find a better one. That makes it a scientific theory.
-
The predictions made by quantum theory are fully consistent with observations on macroscopic objects. Classical physics can be derived from quantum physics, but not v-v.
Can we use Schrodinger equation to describe movements of the earth's moons?
-
The predictions made by quantum theory are fully consistent with observations on macroscopic objects. Classical physics can be derived from quantum physics, but not v-v.
Can we use Schrodinger equation to describe movements of the earth's moons?
Yes and no.
No, 'we' can't do it because 'we' don't have access to the full state of Earth, its moons, and everything that influences them.
Yes, because despite Earth and moons not being a closed system, you didn't specify an equation for just the local system, so a full equation would describe those movements.
And finally:
Sort of, because that Schrodinger equation has more than one solution, so all you get is a probabilistic answer, and that answer is a description of those movements. No classic prediction could do better.
-
Yes and no.
No, 'we' can't do it because 'we' don't have access to the full state of Earth, its moons, and everything that influences them.
Yes, because despite Earth and moons not being a closed system, you didn't specify an equation for just the local system, so a full equation would describe those movements.
And finally:
Sort of, because that Schrodinger equation has more than one solution, so all you get is a probabilistic answer, and that answer is a description of those movements. No classic prediction could do better.
Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics give pretty good prediction on the movements of those moons for quite long period. Given the same information, will Schrodinger equation give similar prediction?
How many solutions are provided by Schrodinger equation, if only sun, earth, and its moons are considered, and nothing else? Are those solutions packed close to each other, like Gaussian, or scattered spikes like combs?
-
They are memes existing in people's minds. Their survival depends on their ability to help us as their media survive. Some minor mistakes may be tolerable. But if they're persistent, someday they would lead us to make wrong decisions, which in turn could cause our extinction, which is also theirs.
In short, good scientific theories will help us conscious beings to survive. But religion is useful in its own way.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/46351-religion-is-excellent-stuff-for-keeping-common-people-quiet-religion
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
Napoleon Bonaparte
It's like the use of Santa Claus story to keep children well behave out of parents' watch.
-
Have faith my little one for I tell you the truth. Truth Truth Truth....
" I do Not Know " has tremendous possibilities.
Only when We Admit We do Not know a thing...does the Opportunity for Seeking arises.
Ps - I donno!
: )
-
Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics give pretty good prediction on the movements of those moons for quite long period. Given the same information, will Schrodinger equation give similar prediction?
The Schrodinger equation has actually been used to numerically predict the position of the moon and other objects.
How many solutions are provided by Schrodinger equation, if only sun, earth, and its moons are considered, and nothing else? Are those solutions packed close to each other, like Gaussian, or scattered spikes like combs?
I'm not sure, it probably depends on the boundary conditions and how you visualize it. In principle the solution could contain all possible orbits over space time. For practical purposes you have to artificially increase the size of the wavelengths by enormous amounts; the particles of the real moon has wavelengths in the subatomic size, whereas numerically you would probably have to use many miles.
-
Only when We Admit We do Not know a thing...does the Opportunity for Seeking arises.
Words of wisdom from a flying instructor: "After 100 hours, you know everything. After 1000 hours, you realise that you don't know everything. After 10,000 hours you know that you never will know everything." It's a good summary as 100 - 300 hours is known among accident investigators as the Death Zone.
And there's the difference: with religion you can make it up as you go along, because every religious prediction begins with "God willing...." so cannot be falsified by experiment, so you know everything right from the start. Intellectually, it's just one long Death Zone.
-
Quote from: Zer0 on 23-09-2021, 19:10:05
Only when We Admit We do Not know a thing...does the Opportunity for Seeking arises.
Words of wisdom from a flying instructor: "After 100 hours, you know everything. After 1000 hours, you realise that you don't know everything. After 10,000 hours you know that you never will know everything." It's a good summary as 100 - 300 hours is known among accident investigators as the Death Zone.
And there's the difference: with religion you can make it up as you go along, because every religious prediction begins with "God willing...." so cannot be falsified by experiment, so you know everything right from the start. Intellectually, it's just one long Death Zone.
We can find truth in science and we can find truth in the holy scriptures they may be more closely related than you think. Even truth itself relies on faith.
-
we can find truth in the holy scriptures
Only by accident.
-
when We Admit We do Not know a thing...
We are doing science, rather than religion which never admits to any lack of knowledge.
-
we can find truth in the holy scriptures
Only by accident.
I must say I don't understand but that is just me not comprehending. What I can say is that only faith is the strength and heart of any belief. I have much trust in science as it has kept me alive to this day but faith will keep me going into the future.
-
Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of evidence
Faith: acceptance of a hypothesis in spite of the evidence
Science: temporary acceptance of a hypothesis that explains what you have seen and has not yet been disproved by evidence
-
I must say I don't understand but that is just me not comprehending.
If there is truth in scripture it's not because it is scripture.
If I write any "story" then if enough people read it, then someone will say "Oh that happened to me".
But that doesn't mean I can tell the future.
It's just a coincidence; an accident of fate.
-
f there is truth in scripture it's not because it is scripture.
If I write any "story" then if enough people read it, then someone will say "Oh that happened to me".
But that doesn't mean I can tell the future.
It's just a coincidence; an accident of fate.
That a good point, it's like when an event takes place like an earthquake always someone says I dreamed of that well what about all the earthquake dreams that never came true.
-
Also the Bible (as an example) tells you things that are true like "thou shalt not kill", but anyone who isn't an idiot already worked that out.
There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.
-
Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis
There's justified believe, if it's supported by evidence. Otherwise, it's unjustified believe.
Knowledge is defined as justified true belief. Hence it's a subset of belief.
-
There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.
Isn't that a bit of a tautology, and equally applicable to any written statement?
-
but anyone who isn't an idiot already worked that out.
That's where the big problem comes in there are idiots in the world that can't seem to work it out.
-
Also the Bible (as an example) tells you things that are true like "thou shalt not kill", but anyone who isn't an idiot already worked that out.
There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.
People usually distinguish between descriptive claims and prescriptive claims. Your example falls into prescriptive category. The value is usually right or wrong, instead of true or false.
-
Also the Bible (as an example) tells you things that are true like "thou shalt not kill", but anyone who isn't an idiot already worked that out.
There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.
People usually distinguish between descriptive claims and prescriptive claims. Your example falls into prescriptive category. The value is usually right or wrong, instead of true or false.
It remains the case that the Bible does not tell you anything that was not known to the people who wrote it.
(and it tells you many things that are false).
-
but anyone who isn't an idiot already worked that out.
That's where the big problem comes in there are idiots in the world that can't seem to work it out.
If they don't understand that then it isn't religion that they are short of; what they lack is compassion. A book won't help that.
-
There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.
Isn't that a bit of a tautology, and equally applicable to any written statement?
Prior to Keppler, nobody knew that planets orbit the sun in elliptical trajectories.
-
There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.
Isn't that a bit of a tautology, and equally applicable to any written statement?
Yes and no.
If I say " I know by divine intervention that the pope will die next Tuesday" then I'm making a testable prediction- it is a "truth that is not yet known".
If I say" I know that he will die sometime", then I'm not telling you anything.
The point is that you don't really learn anything from the Bible.
-
Prior to Keppler, nobody knew that planets orbit the sun in elliptical trajectories.
I think it was known but not well quantified or understood before Kepler. But that is beside the point. The fact is that you have to know something before you can write it down, because the brain guides the hand. Mostly.
-
The fact is that you have to know something before you can write it down, because the brain guides the hand. Mostly.
"Mostly" is the issue here.
The authors of the Bible wrote lots of stuff that was not known.
Stuff like the creation of the universe 6000 years ago in 7 days.
That wasn't "known", it was made up.
-
I think it was known but not well quantified or understood before Kepler. But that is beside the point. The fact is that you have to know something before you can write it down, because the brain guides the hand. Mostly.
Previously, people thought that planets move in epicycles according to Ptolemaic system.
We can write something that's false, even absurd, which doesn't meet the requirements for a knowledge.
-
We can write something that's false, even absurd, which doesn't meet the requirements for a knowledge.
And the Bible, for example, did this a lot.
In particular, it contradicts itself about 400 times.
Yet religion is "defended" using scripture like that, while science is defended using facts.
The question which forms the title of this thread has already been answered.
No science is not a religion and the OP was wrong (and possibly trolling) to say it was defended like one.
-
Would it be unreasonable to say that science finds what religion claims God made from the beginning, if we assume that God made everything from the beginning? (any God/religion)
What I mean is if one really found out how reality is really made, either...
...one found how to make everything...as described in religion using the word God, and can...really make everything...which for now to me at least seems unlikely (very...unlikely...)
...or one found how reality is something else than what we humans imagine, as reality had to be made before humans were really made, and humans are free to try whatever they like, but it isn't true that whatever humans try to do, really makes sense?
...which brings me to my conclusion, am I making any sense with the above?
-
Would it be unreasonable to say that science finds what religion claims God made
Hi, Mike welcome to the forum your thoughts on this subject are quite interesting and fit with my way of thinking to some degree. Hope to hear from you around other subjects maybe even your own.
-
And what made your god?
-
And what made your god?
They say he/she has always been.
-
And what made your god?
They say he/she has always been.
Thanks & Credits - DarkMatter2525/YouTube.
🙏
(Explicit Content, Not for Minors & Believers.)
SideNote - Hi J_T
😇
We seem to have different opinions, but i like the level of tolerance & maturity You reflect.
👍
Thanks 4 it!
Ps - Believers or Atheists do Not scare me...
But bomb strapped head choppin fanatics doo!
☹️
(BOOM)
-
(BOOM)
Very interesting but this goes against always was. Always was is one and the one always is. This video presents a mirror aspect to one. The only aspect is one no smoke and mirrors.
-
And what made your god?
They say he/she has always been.
And how do they know that?
-
And how do they know that?
I don't know it may have been just a saying.
-
And how do they know that?
I don't know it may have been just a saying.
May be they just think they know, or pretend to know to gain authority or some credential over their audiences.
-
Always was is one and the one always is. This video presents a mirror aspect to one. The only aspect is one no smoke and mirrors.
Did you realise that what you posted makes no sense?
-
Did you realise that what you posted makes no sense?
I think I forgot to stop drinking last night but my point is that the video represents a very witty but opposite point of view to a God that has always been. I will keep of the bottle for a while.
-
SideNote - Hi J_T
😇
We seem to have different opinions, but i like the level of tolerance & maturity You reflect.
👍
Thanks 4 it!
Thank you ZerO for your kind words. I found the video very interesting and funny.
-
🙄
🤔
😯
WooW!
Hi again J_T!
😊
Must say, your Responses are very very interesting.
👍👌👍
You seem like someone who has the Ability, or Power of Reasoning...& At the same time, Capability of Believing.
😇
(Dats a rarity nowadays)
Ps - 🖖
-
You seem like someone who has the Ability, or Power of Reasoning...& At the same time, Capability of Believing.
😇
(Dats a rarity nowadays)
Hi Zero thank you for your recognition you to must have fine qualities as most people fail to see or recognise the traits in others. I have always been one to overlook the small things that bothersome others but it makes the world interesting and a challenge negotiating the vast nature in all of us.
-
Tia believes in the Christian God. She goes to a Christian school where she's learned a lot about different theories and evidences from the Bible. This belief makes sense to her and she has a feeling that it's really true.
Can someone help her answer the last questions?
Perhaps you can skip to 7:40.
-
Can someone help her answer the last questions?
Perhaps you can skip to 7:40.
Yes, she could have replied having faith in one's god is proof to one's self not proof to anyone else. As faith is to believe and trust.
-
Tia believes in the Christian God.
Photographic evidence? Fingerprints? Any other evidence consistent with her hypothesis? Any contradictory evidence?
Belief is acceptance in the absence of evidence, and is of no interest or consequence to anyone else unless you use it as an excuse for bad behavior..
-
Yes, she could have replied having faith in one's god is proof to one's self not proof to anyone else. As faith is to believe and trust.
Are we living in a multiverse? Her god is true for her, while other's gods are true for themselves?
-
No, that would be faith. Belief is acceptance in the presence of evidence.
Too weak.
Knowledge is acceptance in the light of evidence, belief is acceptance in the absence of evidence, and faith is acceptance in the face of evidence.
Hence "I know I have a terminal disease. I believe in an almighty and merciful god. I have faith that god will heal me."
-
What science finds God has done. I have faith in God and science. But when I die I will meat God, not science.
-
No, that would be faith. Belief is acceptance in the presence of evidence.
Too weak.
Knowledge is acceptance in the light of evidence, belief is acceptance in the absence of evidence, and faith is acceptance in the face of evidence.
Hence "I know I have a terminal disease. I believe in an almighty and merciful god. I have faith that god will heal me."
Let's refer to dictionary.
belief
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life" · "a belief that climate can be modified beneficially"
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
"we're prepared to fight for our beliefs" · "contrary to popular belief existing safety regulations were adequate"
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs" · "the medieval system of fervent religious belief"
In common usage, definition of belief doesn't exclude acceptance in the presence of evidence.
-
What science finds God has done. I have faith in God and science. But when I die I will meat God, not science.
Will you be able to see/hear/think after you die? Do you have experience of not seeing/hearing/thinking?
-
🙄
Hi Yusuf!
🙏
I'll be Honest, i was Not expecting that from you.
Don't you believe in Heaven?
(U need not answer if u do not wish to)
👍
Honest again, did Not watch Tia's video.
(short on time)
But isn't " G " supposed to be a personal thing.
Why would/should she need to provide proofs or evidence for her beliefs.
(But Yea, then prapz She should keep Her " G " to herself & not tell or influence anyone else)
👍
Ps - Sometimes you have to Unlearn, to Learn.
-
🙄
Hi Yusuf!
🙏
I'll be Honest, i was Not expecting that from you.
Don't you believe in Heaven?
(U need not answer if u do not wish to)
👍
Honest again, did Not watch Tia's video.
(short on time)
But isn't " G " supposed to be a personal thing.
Why would/should she need to provide proofs or evidence for her beliefs.
(But Yea, then prapz She should keep Her " G " to herself & not tell or influence anyone else)
👍
Ps - Sometimes you have to Unlearn, to Learn.
Unexpected results come from false assumptions :P
I believe that heaven is something that we have to build, so we need to learn how to build it. We can't rely on hope that someone else would build it for us, and then keep it running, and fix things in it when they get broken.
The question is repeated several times with various wordings, e. g. Is faith a reliable way to believe in anything?
Basically, we want to make sure that what we believe is true, because it affects our decisions. False beliefs lead to wrong decisions, which in turn cause regrets. Naturally, we want to minimize regrets.
-
Guys, I'm signing out, of this. This junk thread has gone on for long enough. Someone should lock it, up.
You are under no obligation to participate in any particular thread. What may be junk to you might not be to others.
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Ps - 🖖
-
I do not deny religion, and personally, my relationship with God is built on respect for him. But some people believe in mysticism and can see a divine manifestation in everything instead of relying on their strength. In my opinion, it's more like infantilism than religion. That's why science is so vigorously defended. It's because you have to make a lot of arguments to show that things have a pattern in nature. Scientists gain knowledge, test their ideas; that's what I mean.
-
Is faith a reliable way to believe in anything?
Basically, we want to make sure that what we believe is true, because it affects our decisions. False beliefs lead to wrong decisions, which in turn cause regrets.
There is no way to determine if a belief is true if there is no evidence to support that belief. In other words faith is a poor basis for making a decision.
-
That's why science is so vigorously defended.
I'm not sure anyone actually defends science. It's more like a nuclear weapon: if you apply it to any other thought process, the target evaporates.
-
Even if those principles have been proven to be not all valid?
Does quantum theory follow any principle that justifies it to be called science? What makes it different from non-scientific theories and pseudoscience?
Because it is in excellent agreement with experiment, and non-scientific and pseudoscience NEVER do.
-
belief
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life" · "a belief that climate can be modified beneficially"
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
"we're prepared to fight for our beliefs" · "contrary to popular belief existing safety regulations were adequate"
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs" · "the medieval system of fervent religious belief"
In common usage, definition of belief doesn't exclude acceptance in the presence of evidence.
But the examples you quote are all cases where there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, common usage is "you can see that....","obviously....", "here is a photo of...." or "the last time we did it...."
Picking up on Wolfie's theme, quantum theory arose as an explanation of observations and has so far predicted plenty more, which are exactly the characteristics of a scientific hypothesis. As it hasn't yet been disproved or found wanting in accuracy, it qualifies as scientific knowledge.
-
Can't a Quantum Physics professor Not visit a church n pray n ask for blessings n wish for world peace?
To do so would violate his fundamental religious belief that his god created the world and all within it.
I don't make things that don't work, and I'm only a human tinkerer with limited skills, knowledge and resources. An omniscient, omnipotent being that can create anything out of nothing, surely wouldn't create a world that was not to his liking?
Every prayer for healing, peace, or indeed any change in the status quo, is telling said Being that he has screwed up and is not fit to be worshipped. Prayer is the denial of faith.
Ahh Alan, that one was so sweetly logical :)
=
Thinking of it, you know the riposte to that one? I'm sure you do. Free will and what it may lead to. So God isn't responsibility any more, it's us :)
And if (s)he's/it is so, then a prayer might be allowable without insulting, hopefully? Because it was he/she/it who gave us that free will, wasn't it? So you might still have a point there. 'Don't come complaining' sort of.
-
Even if those principles have been proven to be not all valid?
Does quantum theory follow any principle that justifies it to be called science? What makes it different from non-scientific theories and pseudoscience?
Trial and error, statistics, then a hypothesis, then a experiment building from that hypothesis, then new statistics and maybe a new hypothesis. And it produces things, like my computer. Aka tunnelings.
=
https://loadingpartner.simplifiedstrategy.co/tunneling-effect-in-mosfet/
-
Even if those principles have been proven to be not all valid?
Does quantum theory follow any principle that justifies it to be called science? What makes it different from non-scientific theories and pseudoscience?
Because it is in excellent agreement with experiment, and non-scientific and pseudoscience NEVER do.
Scientific theories may disagree with experiment, if the condition is beyond its applicability. E.g. Maxwell theory to explain the behaviors of very small or quickly moving particles.
Even non-science or pseudoscience can agree with some experimental results, primarily due to some coincidences. A broken clock can be correct twice a day.
-
Thinking of it, you know the riposte to that one? I'm sure you do. Free will and what it may lead to. So God isn't responsibility any more, it's us :)
If your god isn't responsible for what happens, prayer is just a waste of time. And what aspect of human free will is responsible for tsunamis or locust plagues?
My favorite example was a preacher who told us how, during the Blitz on London, he had prayed that his sick daughter might die in peace. On the night of 14 November 1940 no bombs fell on east London and she did indeed pass away on a calm night. Whilst the Luftwaffe was busy destroying Coventry instead - thanks be to the merciful Baptist god.
-
Thinking of it, you know the riposte to that one? I'm sure you do. Free will and what it may lead to. So God isn't responsibility any more, it's us :)
That will be valid on the day when I can use my free will to remove the serpent from Eden where God (and only God) chose to put it.
Until then, it's bollocks.
-
Scientific theories as presented to school students are usually in idealized and oversimplified forms. To apply them in real world, some additional information are often required, which are not always available in school textbooks. The unexplained discrepancy may lead someone to lose confidence in science generally.
-
Religion has never been a science, but it supports those who cannot be helped by science. Therefore, when doctors cannot save a patient, they rely on God's help and the soul's salvation.
-
But since the Almighty Creator caused the disease, or designed the human body to be susceptible to injury, the patient always dies in the end, presumably because that is God's Will. Medicine is Sin.
-
But since the Almighty Creator caused the disease, or designed the human body to be susceptible to injury, the patient always dies in the end, presumably because that is God's Will. Medicine is Sin.
You are not doing logical answer, only assertionn not linkind together.
Why is medicine sin ? Because the creator caused the disease ? That is nonsense.
Drinking is sin because the creator caused the thirst.
Moving is sin because the creator caused the need to move.
Etc.
Total nonsense.
You can also simply think that the earth is some sort of hell, so there are some disease etc.
When you die you go out of this hell to another hell with other properties. Thats all.
-
The strength of quantum mechanics is that it degenerates to continuum mechanics for mesoscopic systems and is thus consistent with classical mechanics and everyday observation, whilst predicting phenomena that are not explained by ascribing continuum behavior to very small systems.
-
Total nonsense.
That's religion for you.
-
The strength of quantum mechanics is that it degenerates to continuum mechanics for mesoscopic systems and is thus consistent with classical mechanics and everyday observation, whilst predicting phenomena that are not explained by ascribing continuum behavior to very small systems.
How do you relate it to the topic of this thread?
-
It's actually a response to something you wrote on 21/9/21. Not sure what happened but my computer didn't display everything since then, so I just replied, almost a year late.
-
Well, over the year I've studied this question so that I can answer it as religiously and correctly as possible.
-
Science is simply human understanding of the enviroment a work in progress that has brought great advances.We would all be huddled around a fire in a cave without science..Explain how it is a relgion.
-
It's actually a response to something you wrote on 21/9/21. Not sure what happened but my computer didn't display everything since then, so I just replied, almost a year late.
Better Late than Never!
P.S. - 😊
-
No, it is not.
-
No, it is not.
What's your answer for the second question?
well if not why is it defended as though it were
-
It isn't.
AFAIK nobody has ever started a war or tortured anyone to death in defence of F = Ma.
A few guys were excommunicated or even burned at the stake for suggesting such heresy, but that is the fault of religion, not science.
-
Science is a Journey, towards the Truth...
Religion pretends & says you're already there.
(Random Internet Quote)
✌️
-
Religion is part of evolution and has been deeply embedded in humans from day 1.It plays its role like it or not evolving over time.You will just have to wait till it evolves out which is not going to happen for some time its still deeply embedded in human society.Unfortunately thats how it works.
-
Why Facts Don't Change Minds
We often get into arguments with one another for millions of different reasons, but how often do we genuinely change the other persons mind? Most times, facts don't change minds. But if facts don't change minds, what does?
-
Facts Don't Win Fights: Here’s How to Cut Through Confirmation Bias | Tali Sharot | Big Think
If you want someone to see an issue rationally, you just show them the facts, right? No one can refute a fact. Well, brain imaging and psychological studies are showing that, society wide, we may be on the wrong path by holding evidence up as an Ace card. Neuroscientist Tali Sharot and her colleagues have proven that reading the same set of facts polarizes groups of people even further, because of our in-built confirmation biases—something we all fall prey to, equally. In fact, Sharot cites research from Yale University that disproves the idea that the social divisions we are experiencing right now—over climate change, gun control, or vaccines—are somehow the result of an intelligence gap: smart people are just as illogical, and what's more, they are even more skilled at skewing data to align with their beliefs. So if facts aren't the way forward, what is? There is one thing that may help us swap the moral high ground for actual progress: finding common motives. Here, Sharot explains why identifying a shared goal is better than winning a fight. Tali Sharot's newest book is out now: The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals about Our Power to Change Others.
TRANSCRIPT:
Tali Sharot: So most of us think that information is the best way to convince people of our truth, and in fact it doesn’t work that well.We see that all the time. We see it with climate change, where there’s tons of data suggesting that climate change is man-made but about 50 percent of the population doesn’t believe it, or with people arguing about things like how many people were in the presidential inauguration. So we have facts but people decide which facts they want to listen to, which facts they want to take and change their opinions, and which they want to disregard. And one of the reasons for this is when something doesn’t conform to what I already believe, what people tend to do is either disregard it or rationalize it away; because information doesn’t take into account what makes us human, which is our emotions, our desires, our motives and our prior beliefs.
So for example, in one study my colleagues and I tried it to see whether we could use science to change people’s opinions about climate change. The first thing we did was ask people, “Do you believe in man-made climate change? Do you support the Paris Agreement?” And based on their answers we divided them into the strong believers and the weak believers. And then we gave them information.
For some people we said that scientists have reevaluated the data and now conclude that things are actually much worse than they thought before, that the temperature would rise by about seven degrees to ten degrees. For some people we said the scientists have reevaluated the data and they now believe that actually this situation is not as bad as they thought, it’s much better, and the rise in temperature would be quite small.
And what we found is that people who did not believe in climate change, when they heard that the scientists are saying, “Actually it’s not that bad,” they changed their beliefs even more in that direction, so they became more extremist in that direction, but when they heard that the scientists think it’s much worse they didn’t nudge.
And the people who already believe that climate change is man-made, when they heard that scientists are saying things are much worse than they said before, they moved more in that direction, so they became more polarized, but when they heard scientists are saying it’s not that bad they didn’t nudge much. So we gave people information and as a result it caused polarization, it didn’t cause people to come together.
So the question is, what’s happening inside our brain that causes this? And in one study my colleagues and I scanned brain activity of two people who were interacting, and what we found was when those two people ...
-
Psychologist Todd Rose debunks 8 myths so mainstream we all believe them.
Collective illusions — false assumptions about society that many people share — have existed for thousands of years in many different ways. Today, because of social media and modern technology, they have become even more common.
One example of a collective illusion is the commonly held belief that everyone wants fame, wealth, and power. That’s not true. Most of us want lives of purpose and meaning. But because of false assumptions, many of us spend our lives chasing things that won’t fulfill us.
Another example of a collective illusion is the pervasive idea that the U.S. is an irredeemably divided nation. Sure, Americans have plenty of disagreements. But fundamentally, they have more in common than they might think.
As former Harvard professor and bestselling author Todd Rose explains, the antidote to collective illusions is becoming a more authentic individual, as well as gaining a deeper understanding of how our innate drive to conform to social norms often works against that.
0:00 What is a “collective illusion”?
2:43 How myths invade private opinion
4:54 Myth: Other people can’t be trusted
8:32 Myth: Success is wealth, status, and power
11:12 Myth: Social media reveals what society thinks
13:56: Myth: Group consensus is vetted and factual
17:53: Myth: Elite jobs matter to us
21:11 Myth: America is on the verge of civil war
24:18 Myth: People want university degrees
26:57 Myth: Cultural norms exist to protect you
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collective Illusions is a 9-part series brought to you by Stand Together: a community of changemakers tackling our biggest challenges
-
Religion is part of evolution and has been deeply embedded in humans from day 1.
I think not.
All animals have to make certain assumptions in order to live, and hone their decisions as those assumptions are tested by experience.
Mammals go further, and teach their young some essential skills and truths. This turns out to have a survival advantage that balances the low reproductive rate compared with, say, flies or turtles.
Being physically weak but intellectually strong, humans spend a lot of time learning the most basic physical skills like walking and some very sophisticated social skills that allow us to collaborate in anything from a hunting party to a million folk contributing to put a man on the moon.
But we have a number of internal parasites who teach all sorts of dangerous nonsense that appeals to our need for community. Priests and politicians make their living by inculcating irrational fear and contempt of other people. Babies do not start wars or torture others because of what their grandparents did on Sunday - loathing of folk you haven't met is not instinctive but has to be taught.
And quite why anyone believes in an afterlife, heaven, hell, redemption and all the other stuff that is asserted without proof, is utterly beyond reason and can only be the product of the perverted minds of folk who are incapable of making an honest living.
It is true that some religious communities do some physical good, but good deeds do not need an excuse: buggering choirboys or killing infidels, on the other hand, requires divine authority.
-
Religion shaped the world culturally writing art work it is like it or not. You see it with extreme bias which blinds you.Amimals have no religion are you kidding me comparing is ridiculous.
People are pedophile you don't become one it starts early they are in all churches schools daycares police departments and so on they go there to be near their victims you confused once again that religion causes it.
-
Whether religion promotes sexual perversion (as in Islamic states) or protects it (in Christian states), filth is filth. The Morality Police in today's Iran, and the Spanish Inquisition in former Europe, were established by religious authorities. Crusades, suicide bombing, pogrom, you name it, the faith precedes and demands the action.
Writing? The earliest known written document is a Mesopotamian builder's invoice. The earliest artworks are instruction manuals for hunters (the animals are always depicted in exquisite detail and proportion, surrounded by crude stick men). No hint of religion. Galleries are full of European depictions of torture with occasional erotic glimpses of female nudes and prepubescent cherubs - the influence of religion on art. Islam forbids the depiction of humans and animals altogether - is this healthy?
-
Religion shaped the world culturally writing art work it is like it or not.
Does not parse.
Amimals have no religion
That's a matter of definition.
you confused once again that religion causes it.
No.
I say that religion protects it and thereby encourages it.
-
Religion is concerned with beliefs, science is concerned with facts. Two entirely different fields of thought. QED as Euclid would have said.
-
They are memes existing in people's minds. Their survival depends on their ability to help us as their media survive. Some minor mistakes may be tolerable. But if they're persistent, someday they would lead us to make wrong decisions, which in turn could cause our extinction, which is also theirs.
In short, good scientific theories will help us conscious beings to survive. But religion is useful in its own way.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/46351-religion-is-excellent-stuff-for-keeping-common-people-quiet-religion
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
Napoleon Bonaparte
It's like the use of Santa Claus story to keep children well behave out of parents' watch.
Just like any other memes, religions, political and economic ideologies, science and technology, must compete for their own survival in the memory space of conscious entities. IMO, the only way for humanity to survive global catastrophes and and thrive as multiplanetary or interstellar civilization is to improve its science and technology. Supporting political and economic ideologies are needed to direct distribution of resources for that efforts effectively and efficiently, before we run out of time. The fact that we haven't been there yet is a reminder that our current scientific and technical knowledge need to improve. There must be something that we don't know yet, and some of our current understanding may turn out to be false.
-
reading the same set of facts polarizes groups of people even further
Come to think about it, isn't that the basis of scientific investigation?
Observe, hypothesise, test, repeat......
Test and repeat distinguishes science from religion. Why do we test and repeat? Because we are the awkward squad who always challenge our hypotheses and look for a different interpretation of the facts!
Except climate change, of course, where the consensus is to ignore most of the facts and solve the problem by self-flagellation and blaming the unbelievers.
-
reading the same set of facts polarizes groups of people even further
Come to think about it, isn't that the basis of scientific investigation?
Observe, hypothesise, test, repeat......
Test and repeat distinguishes science from religion. Why do we test and repeat? Because we are the awkward squad who always challenge our hypotheses and look for a different interpretation of the facts!
Except climate change, of course, where the consensus is to ignore most of the facts and solve the problem by self-flagellation and blaming the unbelievers.
The same fact can be interpreted differently, according to people's existing beliefs. Your opinion about climate change is an example.
Rational beings should choose the interpretations that are most compatible with observational facts, and no less importance, self consistent.
-
The same fact can be interpreted differently, according to people's existing beliefs. Your opinion about climate change is an example.
My opinion is based on the belief (acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of data) that the laws of physics haven't changed.
This could be embarrassing as it implies that science is dangerously close to religion, but instead of gluing myself to a road, chucking soup over paintings, or flying around the world and demanding that everyone else makes sacrifices, I have proposed a 5-year experimental test of the hypothesis and even without it, the next 200 years will begin to reveal the truth one way or another.
That's way different from religion, where unbelievers are mocked or killed, and the truth can never be established by experiment.
-
That's way different from religion, where unbelievers are mocked or killed, and the truth can never be established by experiment.
There are religions which are radically peaceful.
-
flying around the world and demanding that everyone else makes sacrifices,
Come on Alan, you understand the concept of investment.
If one plane journey to a meeting persuades a hundred people not to fly so much, it reduces net carbon emissions and is a good thing.
You don't need to sink to gutter press levels of stupidity to make a case unless you know that your case is actually invalid.
-
My opinion is based on the belief (acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of data) that the laws of physics haven't changed.
If you search the forum for instances of the phrase "another blanket" you will see a set of threads where Alan is ignoring the science.
-
Here's an example where incomplete information can lead to false conclusions.
-
Is your refusal to accept the existence of "lies we tell to children" because you don't understand it, or because you don't like the outcomes or what?
For example, in that video the presenter (just before 3 minutes) says that argon would work just as well as CO2 because it's also denser than air.
It's not really due to density- it's due to heat conductivity- though the two are related.
Are you now going to throw away that video because of some sloppy use of language, or are you going to accept the underlying principles and agree that he's making a good point?
-
If one plane journey to a meeting persuades a hundred people not to fly so much,
Citation needed.
COVID certainly impacted the airline industry but there is no evidence that Rishi Sunak's COP appearance persuaded anyone not to fly thereafter. Indeed, the presence of one national delegation requires that everyone else shows off by chartering an airliner or a private jet, because Zoom is only for peasants whose time is too valuable to spend not listening to other people at a conference.
A total of 49,704 people attended, meaning that COP27 actually surpassed COP26 status as the largest in history by more than 10,000 participants.)
AFAIK nothing was actually achieved by either conference.
Admittedly if one Tory MP were to get on a plane, I would probably choose not to, but the plane would still fly. Which is why they don't publish passenger lists any more.
-
My opinion is based on the belief (acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of data) that the laws of physics haven't changed.
If you search the forum for instances of the phrase "another blanket" you will see a set of threads where Alan is ignoring the science.
atwatereffect.com/category/carbon-dioxide-saturation
for instance.
-
My opinion is based on the belief (acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of data) that the laws of physics haven't changed.
If you search the forum for instances of the phrase "another blanket" you will see a set of threads where Alan is ignoring the science.
atwatereffect.com/category/carbon-dioxide-saturation
for instance.
Yes.
That's an example of ignoring the science.
It ignores the fact that the edges of spectra are not perfectly vertical.
You may remember me pointing that out before.
-
Simpson's rule still works. As dies the Beer-Lambert extinction equation that underlies "more blankets".
-
Simpson's rule still works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_rule
"Simpson's rules are several approximations ..."
Yes; they work as an approximation.
But they don't tell the whole story, do they?
Nobody with any understanding of the issues ever doubted the Beer Lambert laws.
You do know they only apply to monochromatic light (and thus not sunlight) don't you?
-
No, they apply to all parts of any spectrum. We even use them to calculate the attenuation of continuum x-radiation, with a small correction for "beam hardening". If Ix > I0e-μx * we wouldn't have an energy crisis - the perpetual motion machine would work!
*cultural misappropriation of > admittedly. But we don't have a simple symbol for "significantly more than".
-
No, they apply to all parts of any spectrum.
Yes, but they don't apply to the whole of the spectrum unless the spectrum is actually monochromatic.
When you have finished wittering it will remain the case that, just because some transitions are saturated, that doesn't mean that other transitions are not.
-
Agreed.
The fashionable consensus on climate change is that the critical part of the earth's radiative spectrum coincides with the 15 micron CO2 lines.
The problem is that they have been saturated in the earth's atmosphere at least since the earliest published measurements (1950s, maybe earlier) and probably always have been.
-
Agreed.
The fashionable consensus on climate change is that the critical part of the earth's radiative spectrum coincides with the 15 micron CO2 lines.
The problem is that they have been saturated in the earth's atmosphere at least since the earliest published measurements (1950s, maybe earlier) and probably always have been.
Saying that the consensus is something impossible isn't going to make you look clever.
It isn't, and misrepresenting the consensus is not something you should be doing on a science page (or, indeed, anywhere else).
The lie you are telling is that because it's (practically) saturated at some wavelengths, it is saturated at all wavelengths.
That's not true; never was and never will be.
-
Previously on the Forum, I've said some Nasty & Nefarious things about Religion.
(Christianity to be Specific)
I would like to Sincerely Apologize to anyone, who's emotions & feelings i might have hurt.
(I'm still Immaturish & kinda Stoopid)
Since then I've had a change of mind & heart...
I now Believe Religion provides Hope to the Hopeless.
(Some people are so damn poor, all They own is Faith & Belief)
P.S. - when you've tried out all options & nothing worked, no matter how seemingly illogical & futile it may seem, just Pray!
(it won't save your life, but it will allow you to take your last breath with ease, & Rest in Peace)
✌️
-
The lie you are telling is that because it's (practically) saturated at some wavelengths, it is saturated at all wavelengths.
I never lie, and I never said that either.
Climate change is more obviously due to the lack of saturation at most of the wavelengths associated with water absorption. This explains the historic record and provides a mechanism for explaining the present and predicting the future. The problem is that it is very difficult to measure the content, distribution and effect of water in the atmosphere. It happens that pCO2 is correlated with temperature and recent human activity but the underlying physics and historic record do not support it being causative.
-
I never lie,
This
The fashionable consensus on climate change is that the critical part of the earth's radiative spectrum coincides with the 15 micron CO2 lines.
The problem is that they have been saturated in the earth's atmosphere at least since the earliest published measurements (1950s, maybe earlier) and probably always have been.
isn't true.
-
https://ownyourweather.com/atmospheric-absorption/
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/climate-dynamics/the-atmospheric-absorption-spectrum.html
and so forth. Are you claiming that all the published data is lies? That's one hell of a conspiracy, dating back to 1958 as far as I can tell.