Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Scary Ignorance (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Scary Ignorance
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Dark matter isn't necessary."

I know it isn't. But a 17 year old first year physics student won't know that. So you have to explain it to him.

"Saying "I don't know" isn't a bad thing. Students should not think teachers are infallable"

I agree. but they won't trust you, or even ask questions, if you don't know ANY answers. If you want students to learn from you, as I said, you need to model competence in the subject area. If you don't, they'll ignore you for being a fool.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lets put this to rest once and for all.

People who know nothing about phsycis shouldn't teach physics. I agree with that. Any sane person would agree with that.

At the same time though, one does not need a masters degree in physics to teach physics properly. Furthermore the vast majority of classes K-12 will not be as advanced as physics. To sum it all up, your making a mountain out of a mole hill. If you want to pay the teachers that require a greater body of knowledge more then other teachers, thats fine. As long as we also get vouchers. [Wink]

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like the thread has shifted to education. [Big Grin]

It seems to me the obvious fix for the education problems of this country are to simply drop public school. Then give people back their tax money thats wasted on public education, and let them pay for a private school of their choice.

My mom has taught both public and private school and I've seen first hand the difference. The quality of the public schools isn't even close to what a private school can do, and oddly enough, the private schools can do better with lesser funding.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And to bring it back for just one moment:

quote:
Why does evolution vs. creationism always get singled out in these "oh, alas and alack for the future of America!" threads?
Because there is a concerted effort by a certain segment of our society to spread lies and disinformation about evolution. Upon inspection, a vast majority of these lies are easily refuted, but repetition and demonization of the opposition perpetuates them in the minds of the uninformed.

The others examples of ignorance occur because people don't pay attention. But when a sizeable portion of the population actually believe an obvious untruth like "life has remained unchanged since the beginning of time" shows that the liars and charlatans are winning. That people are putting faith before reason, even when the facts are firmly against the faith.

Ignorance of facts is worrisome. Ignorance in spite of facts is frightening.

And, no, evolution is not my "faith." I have some doubts about it. But it is painfully clear to anyone who has looked at the facts about this world that life has changed since the beginning of time. Only those who blind themselves from facts could believe such a preposterous lie.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kit
Member
Member # 1299

 - posted      Profile for Kit   Email Kit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
The poll is flawed to the point of being badly misleading. Here's the actual question:

quote:
Some people think humans & other living things have existed in their present form
since the beginning of time. Others think humans & other living things have
evolved over time. Which comes closest to your view?

Framing the question this way leads to gross oversimplifications in people's views. Many will probably key in on the "evolved over time" and go against it. The "Some people think" opening invites people to consider that the safe choice.

On and on.

Finally, note that the organization creating the poll is committed to the advancement of religious causes, and almost certainly is trying to demonstrate more support than they truly have when an honest poll and sample are conducted.

GAH!!! That question is vastly different than what is given to start with.

quote:

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted July 7-17 among 2,000 adults, also finds deep religious and political differences over questions relating to evolution and the origins of life. Overall, about half the public (48%) says that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42% say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Fully 70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time; fewer than half as many white mainline Protestants (32%) and white Catholics (31%) agree.

Saying that one is closer to my view than the other is VASTLY different than saying that I agree with it.

For instance, saying that abortion should be completely illegal is closer to my views than saying that abortions should be mandatory. But that doesn't mean that I actually want to make abortions completely illegal.

Besides, what do they mean by "since the begining of time"? Creation, Big Bang, post Garden of Eden, recorded history?

Posts: 704 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lewkowski:
Lets put this to rest once and for all.

People who know nothing about phsycis shouldn't teach physics. I agree with that. Any sane person would agree with that.

At the same time though, one does not need a masters degree in physics to teach physics properly. Furthermore the vast majority of classes K-12 will not be as advanced as physics. To sum it all up, your making a mountain out of a mole hill. If you want to pay the teachers that require a greater body of knowledge more then other teachers, thats fine. As long as we also get vouchers. [Wink]

Depends on what you think teaching physics 'properly' is. A good teacher needs to understand the stuff s/he is teaching very thoroughly. Certainly in something like physics (or maths for that matter), there are often several different ways of approaching problems and explanations, and different ones work to differing degrees with different pupils. Someone who has graduated from high school may know the basics of ideas like vectors, but damned if I'd trust them to teach it: they may do well most of the time, but at some point they are going to screw up, in all likelihood. You really need to know about the difference between axial and radial vectors (and, by extension, tensors) before you really know enough about what is going on to be able to teach it at high school IMHO. Otherwise you may make the occasional gaffe. Possibly not on the core syllabus, but any explanation that drifts away into some of the more interesting aspects of vectors in physics, for sure. The pupils don't need to know this stuff, but the teacher needs a deep understanding of what is going on to reliably teach it.

Now, how many physics graduates really understand the distinction between vectors and pseudovectors. I suspect many will have come across it briefly, but it won't have actually been part of the course for anyone.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Why does evolution vs. creationism always get singled out in these "oh, alas and alack for the future of America!" threads?
Because there is a concerted effort by a certain segment of our society to spread lies and disinformation about evolution. Upon inspection, a vast majority of these lies are easily refuted, but repetition and demonization of the opposition perpetuates them in the minds of the uninformed.
Are you talking about science reporters, science fiction writers, scientists, or creationists here? Knowing both sides, if I were looking at this without the context of this thread I wouldn't be able to tell.

It seems nearly everybody on both sides is full of lies on this one, if you take "pushing my faith as fact" as being equivalent to lying.

Why is nobody calling the scientists on the carpet for misrepresentation by oversimplification?

Why doesn't anybody get after many of them for their primary motivation of removing God from every aspect of creation?

I'm not going to stop beating my little drum about this until abiogenesis is removed from the textbooks (or properly labeled as conjecture) and all the textbooks start talking about evolution's problems. Until then, it continues to occupy a space in the scientific body of knowledge as a science of the gaps.

You think this creationist movement just might have anything to do with backlash rather than ill-will?

Nearly everybody is wrong on this evolution vs. creation issue. You're all woe-is-me only because you think your side is entirely spotless. Look again.

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Removing God is what makes it science.

Calling the unknown what it is - unkown - and not filling the "gap" with mythology is the only way science can be practiced. Countless "believing" scientists have had no problem with this - including Newton, Galileo, and Einstein.

[ December 13, 2005, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: KidA ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Removing God is what makes it science.
Gag. Puke. Arg - and here's part of the problem. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You think this creationist movement just might have anything to do with backlash rather than ill-will?"

No. The creationist movement pre-dates any of your complaints.

"Why doesn't anybody get after many of them for their primary motivation of removing God from every aspect of creation?"

*Shrug* Because it doesn't matter. Scientists doing this aren't trying to fundamentally alter an epistomological method. Most scientists, by FAR most scientists, aren't interested in getting god out of every aspect of creation... just out of science, as is proper.

"I'm not going to stop beating my little drum about this until abiogenesis is removed from the textbooks"

Abiogenesis is not conjecture. Its fact. There wsa no life on earth, now there is. The METHOD of abiogenesis is fairly well laid out because we know a lot about the structure of life, and which things are needed for next steps, but the exact method is unknown, our hypotheses are currently untested, but they match all the available evidence.

" and all the textbooks start talking about evolution's problems."

It has no problems. There is no evidence that does not fit within evolution. Or would you like to present some and explain how it is incompatible with evolution?

" Until then, it continues to occupy a space in the scientific body of knowledge as a science of the gaps."

Except its NOT. There are gaps in the evidenciary chain, but not NEARLY enough gaps, or important enough gaps, to alter the fact that evolution is one of the most rigorously tested scientific theories out there.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav,

How do you incorporate "God" into a scientific theory? Provide one example.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Removing God is what makes it science.

Calling the unknown what it is - unkown - and not filling the "gap" with mythology is the only way science can be practiced. Countless "believing" scientists have had no problem with this - including Newton, Galileo, and Einstein.

You are dead wrong. In order to do science one needn't assign all ultimate causes to the uncreated blind functioning of lucky happenstance.

The believing scientist doesn't remove God from the equation. He asks: How did God do this?

Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My side is entirely spotless because they are trying to do science, not pushing any faith.

quote:
Why doesn't anybody get after many of them for their primary motivation of removing God from every aspect of creation?
Science requires God to be out of the picture, because you can't have repeatable results if an omnipotent, intelligent entity is monkeying around with the experiments. This doesn't mean God is not there; you just can't take Him into the equation when doing science.

Besides, what do you say to the scientists who believe in God who also believe in evolution and believe that "life has not changed since the beginning of time" is poppycock?

quote:
Why is nobody calling the scientists on the carpet for misrepresentation by oversimplification?
Because working scientists do not oversimply. They don't bother with simplication. They realize that reality is complex, and you can only truly understand it if you understand the complexity. Those who simplify are trying to convey the information without having the reader do too much work. But then you lose much of the detail.

Don't blame scientists for oversimplication. They are just trying to convey information without requiring you to study a subject for four or more years. If this simplication leaves out pertient details, then study up on them!

quote:
I'm not going to stop beating my little drum about this until abiogenesis is removed from the textbooks (or properly labeled as conjecture) and all the textbooks start talking about evolution's problems. Until then, it continues to occupy a space in the scientific body of knowledge as a science of the gaps.
I'll go with you on abiogenesis, since all theories are in their infancy. And I would even agree with evolution's problems, as long as they are actual problems. Most problems in science are known as "avenues of research." The science journals are filled with research into such problems. Scientists are actively trying to answer these problems every day.

Just make sure the problems you think of are actual problems. Remember, most of the "problems with evolution" that anti-evolutionists refer to are not problems. They either have been explained all ready, or are lies or misrepresentations that sound like problems, but really are not.

Yes, there are scientists who push science as "proof" that there is no God. They are wrong. Science proves no such thing. But those who think that life has not changed since the beginning of time are wrong also. Even more so, because there is actual proof that life has changed. They are denying reality because it does not fit into their philosophy. There will always be some people who do so. But if they become a sizeable population, then who knows what will happen.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Abiogenesis is not conjecture. Its fact. There wsa no life on earth, now there is. The METHOD of abiogenesis is fairly well laid out because we know a lot about the structure of life, and which things are needed for next steps, but the exact method is unknown, our hypotheses are currently untested, but they match all the available evidence.
Wrong. Abiogenesis is conjecture based on the assumption that earth life originated on earth. There is no reason to accept this conjecture. If we change the scene and address abiogenesis as the origin of life in the universe, one must first make the assumption that there was originally no life here and that life could only have resulted from certain materialistic processes, neither of which assumptions has any conclusive evidence to support them.
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Science requires God to be out of the picture, because you can't have repeatable results if an omnipotent, intelligent entity is monkeying around with the experiments. This doesn't mean God is not there; you just can't take Him into the equation when doing science.
This is a ridiculous postulate. Science is about finding out how things happened to be the way they are. If some being monkeyed with our DNA for example, then discovering that fact is good science. Pretending that everything must have had a non-directed materialistic source is absurd in the extreme. How would these putative scientists who refuse to take into account inteeligent processes account for the American flag on the moon?
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You are dead wrong. In order to do science one needn't assign all ultimate causes to the uncreated blind functioning of lucky happenstance.

That is not what they do.

quote:
The believing scientist doesn't remove God from the equation. He asks: How did God do this?
Find me one paper from a reputable scientific journal that discusses "God" as an explanation for a scientific question.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How would these putative scientists who refuse to take into account inteeligent processes account for the American flag on the moon?
Richard Nixon.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidA:
Jav,

How do you incorporate "God" into a scientific theory? Provide one example.

There is a world of difference between "incorporating God into science" and saying that "not having God involved is what makes it science". I'm sure you can see the difference, right?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" life could only have resulted from certain materialistic processes"

This a fundamental tenet of scientific inquiry. Science doesn't need conclusive evidence to support this tenet... its a postulate of doing science.

That said, I think you badly misunderstand abiogenesis... simply, the origins of life. Not the origins of life on earth. Since we know that there was no life (either on earth, or in the universe), and now there is, abiogenesis HAPPENED.

And, again, the actual hypotheses of abiogenesis match all the available evidence, and more is being gathered on a very regular basis.

On the other hand, there is literally zero evidence that abiogenesis did not occur. THere is literally zero evidence to advance the hypothesis that abiogenesis did not happen by means other then what we suspect probably happened.

Yes, a specific hypothesis of abiogenesis should not be laid out in science text books as fact. On the other hand, nor should newtons second law, the existence of electrons, or any other scientific theory. specific theories of abiogenesis are not as grounded in observational evidence as the electron or newtons second law, obviously, and should not be taught as accepted. But the attacks on abiogenesis hypotheses as being lousy science are totally ungrounded.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is a world of difference between "incorporating God into science" and saying that "not having God involved is what makes it science". I'm sure you can see the difference, right?
I'm afraid I don't. You'll have to give me a concrete example of how these two statements differ.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" Science is about finding out how things happened to be the way they are."

Not exactly. Science is about examining the universe in a specific way, that only takes into account repeatable, testable, observational evidence, and then providing theories that can predict future findings about the past, or predict future events, accurately.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This a fundamental tenet of scientific inquiry. Science doesn't need conclusive evidence to support this tenet... its a postulate of doing science.

It certainly is not and it is obvious that such could not possibly be the case. If a scientist is studying a viral vector with every hallmark of being engineered in a lab, must he invent some new naturalistic process which may have created the virus? Of course not. If he knew another scientist created the virus he will say so and say why he knows. There is no a priori assumption of materialistic processes in science.

quote:
That said, I think you badly misunderstand abiogenesis... simply, the origins of life. Not the origins of life on earth. Since we know that there was no life (either on earth, or in the universe), and now there is, abiogenesis HAPPENED.
How do you know that there was no life in the universe? That is an absurd statement given the amount that we know about the universe.


quote:
And, again, the actual hypotheses of abiogenesis match all the available evidence, and more is being gathered on a very regular basis.
I wonder what evidence you are citing here. What evidence is there that life developed from abiotic processes? There is none whatever, unless you buy the circular line of reasoning which depends on the original assumption of abiogenesis. "Life exists, therefore abiogenesis must have occurred."
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not exactly. Science is about examining the universe in a specific way, that only takes into account repeatable, testable, observational evidence, and then providing theories that can predict future findings about the past, or predict future events, accurately.
I see. So you would exclude all cosmologists from the definition of scientist.
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adjudicator:
quote:
Science requires God to be out of the picture, because you can't have repeatable results if an omnipotent, intelligent entity is monkeying around with the experiments. This doesn't mean God is not there; you just can't take Him into the equation when doing science.
This is a ridiculous postulate. Science is about finding out how things happened to be the way they are. If some being monkeyed with our DNA for example, then discovering that fact is good science. Pretending that everything must have had a non-directed materialistic source is absurd in the extreme. How would these putative scientists who refuse to take into account inteeligent processes account for the American flag on the moon?
What he means is that untestable claims are not science. Sure if you could find a way to test it, then it could be huge, but since that is impossible right now, then we can't be including it in science.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It certainly is not and it is obvious that such could not possibly be the case. If a scientist is studying a viral vector with every hallmark of being engineered in a lab, must he invent some new naturalistic process which may have created the virus? Of course not. If he knew another scientist created the virus he will say so and say why he knows. There is no a priori assumption of materialistic processes in science."

You just provided an example of a materialistic process.

"There is no a priori assumption of materialistic processes in science.""

Yes there is. ITs called "the only evidence that counts is repeatable, testable, observable evidence." Until you can find a way to test and observe and repeat on a non-materialistic process, science is limited to materialistic processes.

"How do you know that there was no life in the universe? That is an absurd statement given the amount that we know about the universe."

We know a LOT about the origin of the universe, and life, and we know that life couldn't survive the first few seconds of the universe's existence.

"here is none whatever, unless you buy the circular line of reasoning which depends on the original assumption of abiogenesis. "Life exists, therefore abiogenesis must have occurred.""

Except its not circular, because the full statement is "There was no life, now there is life, therefore some abiogenesis must have occured."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I see. So you would exclude all cosmologists from the definition of scientist."

Nope. You should examine more carefully what cosmologists do to gather data.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adjudicator:
I see. So you would exclude all cosmologists from the definition of scientist.

Why would you say that?
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is a ridiculous postulate. Science is about finding out how things happened to be the way they are. If some being monkeyed with our DNA for example, then discovering that fact is good science. Pretending that everything must have had a non-directed materialistic source is absurd in the extreme. How would these putative scientists who refuse to take into account inteeligent processes account for the American flag on the moon?
Science deals with known facts. If and when God becomes a known fact, then He can be incorporated into theories. Once He is known, we can know about His abilities and limitations, and can identify the features of things He has personally created. We will be able to distinguish between what is the result of natural laws and what is the result of His intervention.

So it is easy to account for the flag on the moon. We know men exist; we know they made flags; we know that they built rockets; we know Americans visited the moon. Thus, we know how the flag got to the moon.

If we didn't know pieces of this, we would still have a good idea, because we can recognize how one can be made. We can duplicate the process. We know what materials and equipment you need to do so. It is part of one of the known things that intelligent people can make. We recognize it because we have seen it before, and we know for a fact how those things came about.

But as it stands, God is not a known fact. He is usually characterized as being omnipotent and all powerful. We don't know His limitations, we cannot distinguish between His personal works and result of natural laws. And we don't know when He intervenes in current circumstances and when He doesn't.

Given these limitations to our knowledge, science is instead defining what is natural--what appear to be the result of natural laws. These are constant and consistent, so they are much easier to understand.

Sure, once we understand everything that is natural we can start looking for the supernatural. Or, if we have proof of the supernatural and its limits and abilities, then we can start incorporating that into our theories. But without those, science has to limit itself to the natural. Because without the ability to falsify a theory, you cannot disprove it. And if God can change the outcome of an experiment, how can you falsify it?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How do you know that there was no life in the universe? That is an absurd statement given the amount that we know about the universe.
The universe is about 13 billion years old (give or take a few years). Earth is about 4 billion years old (IIRC--don't quote me). Where did life exist before then?

If the universe did not always exist, it is logical to assume that life did not always exist, unless you have some indication that this is not so.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Linux-
quote:
What he means is that untestable claims are not science. Sure if you could find a way to test it, then it could be huge, but since that is impossible right now, then we can't be including it in science.
and
quote:
Why would you say that?
Do you see the inherent problem here? A cosmologist studies a phenomenon which is not testable nor repeatable. There is certainly indirect evidence available, but no way to confirm any given theory.

Everard-
quote:
You just provided an example of a materialistic process.
If you allow that science can include things which have been altered by intelligent being, then what basis do you have for arguing that science cannot ever invoke God?


quote:
Yes there is. ITs called "the only evidence that counts is repeatable, testable, observable evidence."
You said this before but you clearly don't believe it. The theory of evolution depends heavily of the assumption of random mutation- a statistical process which is not repeatable. It is impossible, for example, to recreate the circumstances which putatively accompanied human evolution, just as it is impossible to repeat the circumstances of the creation of the universe. If you believe these fields of endeavor are scientific then you do not believe your definition of science.

quote:
We know a LOT about the origin of the universe, and life, and we know that life couldn't survive the first few seconds of the universe's existence.
We know nothing at all. We guess a lot based on indirect evidence, evidence which can and has been interpreted differently than in the current dominant theory.

quote:
Except its not circular, because the full statement is "There was no life, now there is life, therefore some abiogenesis must have occured."
Again, the assumption that there was no life and then there was life is an assumption which has no proof.
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you would exclude all cosmologists from the definition of scientist.
You do not need controlled experiments to do science. You must simply show a way (i.e. make a prediction) that can be falsified.

Cosmololgists work with known, proven laws of the universe (physics) and apply them to what they see in the heavens. They make predictions about how these laws would work into explaining what they see. Then they look some more, to try to find examples of when their predictions do not work. When they do, they modify their theories to explain the new observation or they discard the theory as falsified (usually only after they have found a better theory).

New observations provide the ability to falsify a theory.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The universe is about 13 billion years old (give or take a few years). Earth is about 4 billion years old (IIRC--don't quote me). Where did life exist before then?

If the universe did not always exist, it is logical to assume that life did not always exist, unless you have some indication that this is not so.

Logically, a given ray of light must follow a set path, independent of whatever measurements you may perform on that light ray. Logically a measurement made now cannot change millions of years of past history.

Whatever logic tells you, logical assumptions are not proof, and they are clearly flawed in many cases.

Further, the only things we know about the universe are based on measurements made from one infinitesimally small piece. Abstraction from such a limited sample to the whole thing is bad science.

Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You do not need controlled experiments to do science. You must simply show a way (i.e. make a prediction) that can be falsified.
In that case you must reject Everard's definition of science, which was my whole point.
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Further, the only things we know about the universe are based on measurements made from one infinitesimally small piece. Abstraction from such a limited sample to the whole thing is bad science.
Clearly you think that astronomy and cosmology is pointless endeavor.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Clearly you think that astronomy and cosmology is pointless endeavor.
Not at all. I think that believing that we know things that we only guess is folly.
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I think that believing that we know things that we only guess is folly"

True. THere's also a vast gulf between saying we "know" something in science, and a "guess".

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
True. THere's also a vast gulf between saying we "know" something in science, and a "guess".
I agree, but I sense you are trying to make a broader point here. Would you care to elaborate?
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Science deals with known facts.

What's a fact?

I do computer vision and machine learning research. Facts as it turns out, aren't as concrete as we'd like them to be, and are generally built on consensus.

As such, science deals with accepted postulates rather than known facts.

quote:
Sure, once we understand everything that is natural we can start looking for the supernatural. Or, if we have proof of the supernatural and its limits and abilities, then we can start incorporating that into our theories.
Why wait? We've studied countless single aspects of very complex systems and eventually were able to separate it all out. Electromagnetism comes to mind.

quote:
But without those, science has to limit itself to the natural. Because without the ability to falsify a theory, you cannot disprove it. And if God can change the outcome of an experiment, how can you falsify it?
It really depends on your definition of God. There's no good reason at all to toss him, as long as you postulate him properly:

1) It's possible for God to interfere with the natural order of things.

2) He is highly unlikely to interfere (or will not interfere) with my experiments.

Simple. Science allows you to postulate things like that. If someone doesn't believe your postulates - either because they subscribe to a definition of "faith" that precludes seeking to understand the workings of God or from atheistic bloody-mindedness - that's their problem, and they can disagree all they like. Community consensus, not fact, not (dis)belief in God (though it's correlated), will decide whether science built from those postulates is accepted.

Funny thing I just noticed: #2 is extremely reasonable, since we have no evidence of God interfering with any other experiments.

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pickled shuttlecock:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Science deals with known facts.

What's a fact?

I do computer vision and machine learning research. Facts as it turns out, aren't as concrete as we'd like them to be, and are generally built on consensus.

As such, science deals with accepted postulates rather than known facts.

quote:
Sure, once we understand everything that is natural we can start looking for the supernatural. Or, if we have proof of the supernatural and its limits and abilities, then we can start incorporating that into our theories.
Why wait? We've studied countless single aspects of very complex systems and eventually were able to separate it all out. Electromagnetism comes to mind.

quote:
But without those, science has to limit itself to the natural. Because without the ability to falsify a theory, you cannot disprove it. And if God can change the outcome of an experiment, how can you falsify it?
It really depends on your definition of God. There's no good reason at all to toss him, as long as you postulate him properly:

1) It's possible for God to interfere with the natural order of things.

2) He is highly unlikely to interfere (or will not interfere) with my experiments.

Simple. Science allows you to postulate things like that. If someone doesn't believe your postulates - either because they subscribe to a definition of "faith" that precludes seeking to understand the workings of God or from atheistic bloody-mindedness - that's their problem, and they can disagree all they like. Community consensus, not fact, not (dis)belief in God (though it's correlated), will decide whether science built from those postulates is accepted.

Funny thing I just noticed: #2 is extremely reasonable, since we have no evidence of God interfering with any other experiments.

Thats all well and good, but whats the point? What compelling reason is there, when all the evidence we have shows that it doesn't matter if there is god or not.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you're looking for evidence of interference by, say, an intelligent designer, you have to postulate the possibility of the existence of a designer. Postulating that designer in the manner I outlined would make it fit within the framework of science.

Turns out that's exactly what they've done, yet people still call it "not science" because "it includes God," and "God can change the outcome of your experiment."

Don't get me wrong: it's still a very young avenue of research and as such shouldn't get taught along with more mature stuff, but I do believe it's a justifiable line of inquiry.

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1