Could it be that you believe in everything you want to be true (and cannot be easily debunked)?
No, because otherwise I wouldn't believe in afterlife, which is something that I absolutely do not want to believe in. But I have no choice but to accept the reality of afterlife because of the overwhelming evidence that supports it. I believe in science and evidence most of all. No belief can stand against the truth.
Scientific evidence is about as subjective as beauty.
Ah, the internet, the continual sacrifice of intelligent discourse for uninformed and ill-conceived statements of absolution.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD:
Step 1: Ask a question.
Step 2: Do background research
Step 3: Form a hypothesis and a null hypothesis
Step 4: Do an experiment
Step 5: Collect data
Step 6: Determine Empirical facts that can be drawn from data.
Step 7: Determine whether facts support hypothesis. If yes, continue testing. If no, reject hypothesis, and accept null hypothesis.
So, grand master of inanity, tell me exactly which of those steps contain any subjectivity?
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
If logical deduction was used, people wouldn't believe in evolution, human rights, global warming, and a whole host of other utter bullshit. People seem to pull shit out of their asses and everyone believes it. Not very scientific. The way "science" works these days when it comes to things that can't be applied to engineering, is that if the person went to school, then their word is accepted as truth, unless it conflicts with the general flow of society.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
People seem to pull shit out of their asses and everyone believes it. Not very scientific.
This is a problem with people, not with the scientific method.
It sounds like you have an issue with scientists in general, not with the scientific method in specific. You have to realize that scientists are people too, and have their own irrational needs, which occasionally lead some of them to try to slip a fast one past the audience. This is why peer review is such a huge part of the professional scientific world, and why people who try to cheat the system are censured so heavily that they basically can't get a job doing any kind of technical work again in their lives.
You do also need to be aware of the role that modern media plays here. A scientist may write a paper that says "Pigs that were exercised in this way and fed this diet were more aerodynamic (as measured by launching the pigs on a ballistic path via slingshot) than pigs that were exercised in these other ways (including no special exercise at all) and fed these other foods", and you can bet that what the public sees will be "Scientist Makes Pigs Fly".
For your specific points:
* Evolution: The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have thus far to explain how different species came to be the way they are. We have tons of evidence, and tens of thousands of professional scientists who have studied it and verified the results.
* Human rights: this isn't an issue for science; it's an issue for philosophy. Maybe psychiatry gets involved at some point, but only tangentially.
* Global warming: the climate is one of the most complicated systems that we've made an attempt to study in depth. We're still developing our models, and scientists routinely suggest alternative interpretations of the data (or uncover new data that needs to be taken into account). There's a number of sources available (like ice core analysis) that show that the climate is changing; the big questions are how and why (at which point we'll be able to answer with authority the what, i.e. what do we do about it?).
* Bullshit. Standard output from healthy cattle. Not certain where you're going with this one. :p
Of course, you're clearly irrational when it comes to science, so I'm not certain why I'm writing this. Can't resist getting into an argument, I guess.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Science doesn't even acknowledge the mind. The scientific method cannot account for thought. It cannot account for anything that isn't observable. Intuition isn also not accounted with the scientific method. There are many flaws with the western method itself.
Besides all that, you just said it yourself. Peer review. When people are paid to say certain things, then only certain views will be published and others will be black-listed. Or when people just out-right lie. Considering most of modern science not related to engineering, has been purely an atempt to discredit religion, or more specificly christianity [most of the scienctist in this field consider all religion to be a flavor of christianity anyways]. So you can expect that they will say what sounds best and more importantly achives their goal.
Claiming scientists are for the most part sincere in their reports, is like saying american pharmecutical companies sincerely only want to help you. Science in Ameirca and Europe is pretty much reduced to the same status western universitiews have, they are institutions that exist only to promote certain views by certain groups. That's it.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Derakon wrote:
sixofour wrote:
People seem to pull shit out of their asses and everyone believes it. Not very scientific.
This is a problem with people, not with the scientific method.
It sounds like you have an issue with scientists in general, not with the scientific method in specific. You have to realize that scientists are people too, and have their own irrational needs, which occasionally lead some of them to try to slip a fast one past the audience. This is why peer review is such a huge part of the professional scientific world, and why people who try to cheat the system are censured so heavily that they basically can't get a job doing any kind of technical work again in their lives.
You do also need to be aware of the role that modern media plays here. A scientist may write a paper that says "Pigs that were exercised in this way and fed this diet were more aerodynamic (as measured by launching the pigs on a ballistic path via slingshot) than pigs that were exercised in these other ways (including no special exercise at all) and fed these other foods", and you can bet that what the public sees will be "Scientist Makes Pigs Fly".
For your specific points:
* Evolution: The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have thus far to explain how different species came to be the way they are. We have tons of evidence, and tens of thousands of professional scientists who have studied it and verified the results.
* Human rights: this isn't an issue for science; it's an issue for philosophy. Maybe psychiatry gets involved at some point, but only tangentially.
* Global warming: the climate is one of the most complicated systems that we've made an attempt to study in depth. We're still developing our models, and scientists routinely suggest alternative interpretations of the data (or uncover new data that needs to be taken into account). There's a number of sources available (like ice core analysis) that show that the climate is changing; the big questions are how and why (at which point we'll be able to answer with authority the what, i.e. what do we do about it?).
* Bullshit. Standard output from healthy cattle. Not certain where you're going with this one. :p
Of course, you're clearly irrational when it comes to science, so I'm not certain why I'm writing this. Can't resist getting into an argument, I guess.
Very well put. Thank you for such an articulate post :)
sixofour wrote:
Considering most of modern science not related to engineering, has been purely an atempt to discredit religion, or more specificly christianity [most of the scienctist in this field consider all religion to be a flavor of christianity anyways].
This is so incredibly ignorant. I work in the field of physical medicine and there is absolutely nothing to do with religion involved in the research that is being performed by my peers and mentors.
Except that they all probably hate the idea of being the property of the Creator. Or the idea that you can aquire information without data crunching, or using the scientific method.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
You're painting with awfully broad strokes here. Are you at all aware of the demographics of scientists? I'll give you a hint: they're a lot like the demographics of any other group of people. Your average scientist in the USA is Christian. Your average scientist in India is Hindu. In Iran they're mostly Muslim. And so on.
Even if they weren't, science and religion are not inherently at odds. Religion seeks to tell us what we should do with our lives from a moral and philosophical perspective, which, as I noted earlier, is not an area that science deals with for the most part. For the most part, when you see "science" clashing with "religion", you're seeing one of the following:
* A strict interpretation of a religious text that disagrees with scientific observations (Young Earth Creationists, evolution, etc.)
* A moral issue that is being painted as being religion vs. science when in fact it's one moral standpoint vs. another moral standpoint (abortion, the death penalty, homosexuality, etc.)
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Those aren't the things that are damaging. When there is an issue that is science vs religion, each side will go with what they 'feel' is right.
Its the subtle stuff that is damageing, such as denying intuition. blurr logic [or outright rejecting it].
Simple example. There cannot be an infinite number of changes before this one. That is a logical, undebatable fact. But of course, no one promotes or even agrees with it, throwing all logic out of the window. And people do so only for one reason, to try to deny the need for a Creator. Because if changes before right now are not infinite, then they had to have a start, by one that doesn't change. A Creator.
But because of the implication, and only because of it, this fact is denied, and grey philosophy terms are implanted, which is mostly utter bullshit, but it avoids the need for them to recognize that there is a Creator.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
Not really. But what ever helps you sleep at night.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
Science doesn't even acknowledge the mind. The scientific method cannot account for thought. It cannot account for anything that isn't observable.
Actually, as a student of the field of neuroscience, thought is quite the observable phenomenon - take your pick - fMRI, extracellular network recordings via penetrating micro-electrodes, Surface EEG, Intracranial Electrocortiography grids, New photo-voltaic measurements, Magnetoencephalography, and more I'm sure I'm forgetting. We simply don't have the ability to understand what we record, yet. I'm sure one day, humanity will have figured out the network dynamics that allowed you to understand the content of this sentence.
What? You think the mind is separate from the brain? Ask Phineas Gage about that one. Or any victim of stroke, for that matter.
Now, I'm sure that you are going to reply with some half-baked response about souls, and such, but I forgive you. It is obvious that you have been agonist-binding your cannabinoid receptors.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Two pages without replies from me... meh.
Baxter wrote:
After you quit all administrative tasks for the site, will you still visit the forums and irc regularly / once in a while / sporadically?
I don't know. I'll probably try to avoid alltogether, but how well my discipline holds, that remains to be seen :) In any case, I'll probably be reachable in IRC even if I'm not on the #nesvideos channel.
Actually, as a student of the field of neuroscience, thought is quite the observable phenomenon - take your pick - fMRI, extracellular network recordings via penetrating micro-electrodes, Surface EEG, Intracranial Electrocortiography grids, New photo-voltaic measurements, Magnetoencephalography, and more I'm sure I'm forgetting. We simply don't have the ability to understand what we record, yet. I'm sure one day, humanity will have figured out the network dynamics that allowed you to understand the content of this sentence.
So basiclly, its just as I said. You can't. What you observe in the brain is its reaction to thought. Not the thought itself. Because those things you see, are not the same for every person, despite the fact that they are all told to think about the same thing.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 650
Location: a little city in the middle of nowhere
"There can't be an infinite number of changes before this one"
What does that even mean? maybe if you talked with some sense, maybe someone would see your infallable logic
It means exactly as it says, an infinite number of events cannot have occured before June 16th 2009.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
It means exactly as it says, an infinite number of events cannot have occured before June 16th 2009.
Time is not discrete, so actually there have been an infinite number of events. However all you are attempting to prove from this statement is that time had a beginning, which science already gives you for free. Note, this is the ask Bisqwit thread, not the debate religion thread.
What do you meqan define an event? You don't know what an event is? Any change that happens in anything.
Infinite regression shows there can't be an infinite number of them before now. And a thing that does not exist cannot do. Therefor the Universe has a start, and was started by one not related to it.
Anyone who disagrees, is denying logic. And their word is worth shit.
To flagitous
Time is a measurement, like celcius or faranhiet. Its not a thing in an of itself. I am saying that there was a first change. And many changes after that, and since we are still changing, an infinite number of changes have no occured. Because there isn't an infinite number of things that exist. An infinite number of changes cannot occur at once. This isn't a theory. Set theory is.
Anyways, to finish up, yes its a catagoricly black and white issue. You will probably say you don't believe in absolutes, And I will say that its your problem not mine. And I think that covers the basics. If anyone wants to continue, PM me. [Sorry for going OT again]
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
You are selecting only a part of reality denying the rest. Society is a pretty chaotic system. It's not that simple.
many people wrote:
It is logical.
It's easy to call something logical if you're sure it's true. It insults people who don't understand how it works and yourself if you're wrong. Many things would be logical to be true, but aren't true. Logic relies on the assumption that everything you have observed about a system should be able to determine its results perfectly. It assumes we know everything about it.
many people wrote:
They do this and that, therefore they..
Not all people of that specific group do this and that.
The world isn't simple and it insults God's creation if we claim it to be. In any case I think it's arrogant and naive to think we know the truth (or even part of it) about this world. Only God understands this world. If there is no God, nobody does.
Science works. We don't know why, but I'm glad it does.
There is no absolute proof in this world.
Logic is intuition. It requires no observation. No exprience or previous expiriment or evidence.
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
[00:31:12] <stickie> by the way, thanks for the sig sixofour
[00:31:23] <sixofour> dejavu
[00:31:25] <sixofour> what sig?
[00:31:55] <stickie> you will just have to find out *insert mystical music*
