Mach's principle

I made the mistake of underestimating the intensity of the motivation that just a pinch of religion inspired curiosity can add to the endeavor of good science.

Anything we don't know will mean that the hypothesis is a superstition until it is tested, so all you really need to do to turn someone like that into a great scientist is to modify their method of inquiry to rule out magician's tricks and fallacies first.

Science was my first religion, but not everyone has this experience. Most people find they require a sense of morality and community first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The way I see it is as long as your mathematical and scientific evidence is logically consistent what your personal beliefs are should not matter. It's actually really interesting to me that in the end we all will be talking about the same thing. I see such a waste of human intellectual resources because of lack of effective communication arguments going on for days months sometimes even years but still no consensus reached. Sometimes it's because of comprehension problems of a member or members. But even still a more effective method must be developed to stop the waste of time and energy spent on arguments. Actual science needs to be introduced more agressively , the problems need to be expressed more clearly. All complicated aspects can be simplified if science and mathematics is broken down in a simply straight forward form then a larger percentage of the population can get involved. This would make our planet a lot more efficient, this is actually a lot more easy to accomplish than it may seem. This is an untapped market for the ones that can see the opportunity here...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is strange to me that you think Danshawen defends the religious when he himself seems more or less a non religious person, he seems to know about religion but on this forum he clearly states his dis like of many of the dominant religious principles. Me on the other hand I am not religious but I believe in God. This does not interfere with any scientifical information that is introduced to me. You see the greatest challenge for any life form is domination of the ego, my ego have defeated me many times. But as long as you can honestly and genuinely accept the truth you will get over the ego. This challenge may be different for every person.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To defeat the ego you must be able to admit when you are wrong only then will you be able to stop your growth stunt. But just because you were wrong doesn't mean you are worthless it just means you were focusing on the smaller less significant picture. It's the beauty in life we all seek once it's gone then it's like there is no point to live life just feels dull afterwards no meaning to existing, it really is a cosmic joke but if that is the truth then just accept it and die , don't get married or have any kids make it an ultimate end for at least earth it would be a favour done for all. Then we can all be resting in piece.

 

It's funny to me what are we all fighting for in the end were all going to die and even if you could live forever more than likely you would not want to what a boring reality that would be. But I guess it might depend on the reason you choose to live in the first place. I however have no reason to live I see nothing of value on planet earth. More and seemingly love and everything else in this world is worthless and just an illusion.

 

I want to keep discussing science but my previous questions was ignored?? Gone is all the excitement then...hmm

 

If only someone had an explanation of gravity that truly linked them together. Just being facetious Dan!

 

Firstly as I thought I made it clear, it isn't so much Dan defending religious dogma, rather than his defence of anything that goes against mainstream,
My prime beef is against these anti mainstream adherents not posting in the correct sections. Dan just recently has offered consolation to two, a a religious nut, the other wellwisher. Both threads were subsequently moved to the fringes.
Secondly, you belief in God, or anyone's belief in God, does not concern me. What concerns me is when those beliefs are argued in place of science.

 

Ego in the right proportions is a good thing. In fact it could be said to be near indispensable.
But don't forget what the great man said......
"More the knowledge, lesser the ego: Lesser the knowledge, more the ego
Albert Einstein:
He put it mathematically this way......
Ego=1/Knowledge

Albert of course being amongst our greatest scientists, was also notably a very humble man.
Couple that with some of this forum's participants, and the four of notoriety that have all claimed to have a TOE.

 

That was not the issue at all. The issue was the intent and the obvious agenda, evidenced by this thread eventually being moved.

Hypothesis are derived by what we observe, and then via the scientific method and peer review, either move on to accepted theories, or are confined to the scrap heap.

I find it hard to accept that science is anything like a religion.
Science by definition is a systematic search for knowledge and how the Universe works, using experiments and observations, and applying logic to that data, to arrive at a working acceptable scientific theory.
Morality admittedly I find hard to define in words.
But the following exert from WIKI seems to match my thoughts on that particular matter.

"Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness."

 

Nowhere in the scientific method I was taught does the words "peer review", or equivalently "consensus" appear.

A hypothesis, even in science, need not be one that is perfectly informed either by observation, nor by induction based on established science. If that were required, not very much science would get done. I'm not saying this might not actually be a good thing. Besides which, no hypothesis is required in order to simply observe and report whatever you recorded.

Really? Haven't you heard? Karl Popper removed induction from the scientific method and replaced it with something more akin to natural selection. Perhaps that's where your "peer review" idea comes into play in connection with the scientific method. A properly designed and controlled scientific experiment requires nothing like peer review, other than a review of the limitations of the experiment. Peer review, like ordination, is an artifact of religious or academic tradition and community values, not science. A consensus or an argument based on how many people believe something is not an argument for or against its validity when instrumentation and/or science is advanced to the next level. If it worked that way, I would hesitate to call such a process "science".

I needn't remind anyone here that although its scientific validity is unassailable, few lessons in morality are derived from natural selection as source of inspiration, much less a model for the way science should work.

 

Peer review is part of the scientific methodology, whether you like it or not.
And on that score you know I am 100% correct, despite your attempt at intellectual dishonesty and your usual foolishness.

I can accept that, but until it undergoes appropriate peer review, it remains just an hypothesis.

Yep really.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh that's so funny and just more intellectual dishonesty.
I needn't remind anyone here of course on your own fringe dwelling antics, and your own support for religious and other nuts, whose threads are in time moved to the fringes.

Let me remind you again of what the great man said.
EGO=1/knowledge
The more ego, the less knowledge: the less knowledge, the more ego.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I totally agree. It's nice to see a quote properly used once in a while. Thanks, paddoboy!

 

No thanks needed. I just wish you would apply it to yourself.

 

Gravity is spacetime geometry, or flat spacetime, curved/warped in the presence of mass/energy.
Why we should feel the effects of gravity when mass/energy warps spacetime, is still somewhat of a mystery.

 

As you wish. To paraphrase:

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge (nor evidently ego) but imagination." -- Synthesized from two quotes by A. Einstein

 

Albert of course was emphasising Imagination as just as important as knowledge.
It also has its place, as does ego.
The problem though is that even with knowledge, Imagination and some ego, if one has an agenda, then reality or the true objective of the discipline at hand, is somewhat obscured.

I mean you can imagine the tooth fairy, or Bigfoot, or the easter bunny as much as you like, but that's where they stay....

 

The trouble with knowledge is that you can fill the world's libraries in every language a dozen times over (including the fiction sections) and still fall far short of a complete knowledge about a single grain of sand. Knowledge as it applies to finite minds presents you with a limited choice; a generalist or a specialist. The generalist gets an introductory exposure to every everything it is possible to learn about until he knows almost nothing about everything. A specialist gets in depth exposure to a single field of learning, like that grain of sand, until he knows everything there is to know about almost nothing.

Imagination is what it is which has conceived, designed and constructed every computing device ever constructed from the basic element of that single grain of sand, and this is only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the potential of imagination.

Neither knowledge nor imagination is finite unless time is (and it is not). You could spend your short life in libraries and read everything ther is to read about apples, but if you have never tasted one, you will never experience how it tastes from the written word. This is the limitation of knowledge derived from symbols which are the tools of a finite mind. Creatures with finite minds and lifespans would do well to learn these limitations first. If they do, ego never really enters the equation. If it does, those who understand this much don't really care.

 

But apparently without a Phd we are not worthy of imagination.

 

The expanse of knowledge is near infinite, that is a logical given, if we accept the observations of the Universe to which we belong. What science is all about is gaining what knowledge we can, forming hypothesis as to what and why something is happening, getting it peer reviewed and finally accepted, based on the scientific method and logic.
Let me say it again, Imagination as just as important as knowledge.
It also has its place, as does ego.
The problem though is that even with knowledge, Imagination and some ego, if one has an agenda, then reality or the true objective of the discipline at hand, is somewhat obscured.
Ignoring the rest of your useless banter, that seems to be what troubles many on this forum, and society in general.
Do I have an agenda? Sure I do! I prefer to adhere to what I see as the common sense and logic as promoted by all aspects of the scientific method. I'm open to change as inevitable and I'm open to new hypothesis as long as those hypothesis improve and extend on the incumbent model.
I'm open to the fact that any brilliant mind that happens to stumble across say a workable validated TOE, would not be claiming its validity on a public science forum open to all.
They would have there head down and arse up, in doing the best they could in detailing their discovery/hypothesis in a scientific paper, and running the gauntlet with peer review, and possibly coming out the other side as another Einstein.
Science, the scientific method and peer review most certainly do not work on the concept that if Joe the local garbage collector and Bill, the local school Principal from down the street, should put their collective heads together and use their extensive Imaginations to Imagine that they have magically formulated a TOE, should be treated any different then any working scientists at the coal face. They also need to run the gauntlet...they also need to show why their hypothetical discovery is valid, they also need to undergo strict, critical and proper peer review.
It doesn't work, and it doesn't do Joe and Bill any good, to pat them on the head, and smile at them lovingly because they have exercised their Imaginations and have come up with some idea.
Of course there is a non zero chance that possibly they may have....although closer to zero then one, but the over riding aspect of what they claim to have discovered, is that it must undergo the same scrutiny.
Encouragement is one thing.....False hope and bullshit because you yourself being somewhat of a Maverick and can relate to them is another.
You understand?
Looking forward to another "like" Dan.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!