You want evidence? How's this?

---
Reading a single post from an infidel is usually sufficient to keep a Christian from straying from the path of righteousness.
---

Fortunately for atheists, most christians are not so judgemental as to take every single post by an infidel somehow as a reaffirmation of self-righteousness.

---
So, 5 billion years isn't enough, after all?
---

No that isn't the point. The cut and past mechanism refered to has a ratcheting effect. It changes the way that populations shift through their logical genetic space so that forms of greater survivability will tend to proliferate.

---
The ability of scientists to reach valid, or even plausible, conclusions is suspect, given their track record.
---

You aren't on a computer? Airplanes don't fly around the sky, the concept of microbiology, chemicals, atoms, electrons are all implausible? I suspect that the above is more a reflection of your personal inclinations rather than any actual knowledge of science's track record.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: You should know the answer better than anyone

*Originally posted by Bambi
Why, of course by wishing for it reeeal hard. *

I do know the answer.

You'd be driving on the "right" side of the road, and you'd be in that accident you were implying I would have.

*Originally posted by synaesthesia
Fortunately for atheists, most christians are not so judgemental as to take every single post by an infidel somehow as a reaffirmation of self-righteousness. *

What's fortunate about that?
In any case, how your errors make me self-righteous is one of those tortuous twists of logic only an atheist could dream up.

*No that isn't the point. The cut and past mechanism refered to has a ratcheting effect. It changes the way that populations shift through their logical genetic space so that forms of greater survivability will tend to proliferate. *

You seem unfamiliar with evo/cre debates.
5 billion years IS the point.
If evolution is true, but 5 billion years isn't enough, then how would you ever prove its truth?

This "logical genetic space" thing seems to be an example of mixing computer programming with real life.

*You aren't on a computer? Airplanes don't fly around the sky, the concept of microbiology, chemicals, atoms, electrons are all implausible? I suspect that the above is more a reflection of your personal inclinations rather than any actual knowledge of science's track record.*

You seem to be rather unclear on the concept.
Computers weren't invented by scientists.
And neither were airplanes.
The nature of matter was hypothesized thousands of years ago by Greek philosophers.

Very little of any useful nature was invented by scientists.
On the other hand, there is nuclear waste, the nuclear bombs, DDT, practically every form of pollution known to man, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They are called "computer scientists".

These, of course, were invented by God.

They had no clue with regard to subatomic structure, and the idea of the "atom" was ridiculed and discarded. In this respect, the Greeks don't count.

Science and engineering are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one cannot be a good engineer without being a good scientist.

These, of course, were invented by scientists. It's not like the very same scientists are trying to argue for cleaner technologies against the market forces even as we speak...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*Originally posted by Bambi
They are called "computer scientists".*

No, Bambi, "computer scientists" are people who pretend to have created the computer.
What they actually do is use computers which were already invented by the time the first "computer scientist" showed up.

*These, of course, were invented by God.*

What scientist has ever had anything to do with inventing any part of an airplane?

*They had no clue with regard to subatomic structure, and the idea of the "atom" was ridiculed and discarded. In this respect, the Greeks don't count.*

Well, I ridicule you. In this respect, you don't count either.
What kind of a point were you thinking of making?

*Science and engineering are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one cannot be a good engineer without being a good scientist.*

Or so the "science" fairy tale goes, anyway.
Engineers actually do something with the lists of numbers generated by scientists.

*These, of course, were invented by scientists. It's not like the very same scientists are trying to argue for cleaner technologies against the market forces even as we speak... *

Actually, they are arguing for more of the same.
After all, the pollution they invented was only supposed to be a "clean" solution for an earlier problem.

DDT is the example which best typifies the "scientific" approach.

Here is how the dream went.

"too many bugs
DDT
fewer bugs"

Here is how it actually went

"too many bugs
DDT
killed all the birds which ate the bugs
more bugs"

Ain't science grand?

 

Tony1

Please do not take all this blatant disregard for your beliefs personally. You have every right to believe what you believe. Most Christians will proclaim their beliefs within the safety provided by church walls. You have displayed an uncommon courage by offering your beliefs to a, sometimes hostile, group of people whose views are diametrically opposed to your own. These exchanges of ideas seem to me very similar to the person who has their fingers caught in a Chinese finger puzzle. The harder they pull, the harder it is to free their fingers. You see it as your holy mission to discredit, without diligent consideration, the views of people whose reality is funneled through a world described by the observation of the natural world. Your antagonist see it as their holy mission to discredit the only way you know how to make sense of the world, and it is very threatening. It is not easy to reshape who you are. At least you are trying to find reasons not to. Most observers of religion never even attempt that much. You do not need to try to find the truth here. It will find you.

 

Now that's progress

Tony,

You are almost at the point where I won't have to reply at all. The sheer idiocy of your posts is very close to speaking for itself better than I could.

Babbage. Turing. Von Neumann. You were saying?

Electronics. Airfoil. Jet engine. Lightweight materials. Sensors. Jet fuel. Aerodynamic stability. Drag reduction. Navigation instruments. Load bearing structures and load distribution. Acoustics. Heat conduction and distribution. Autopilot. In-air maneuvering. Landing and takeoff aerodynamics. Air conditioning and filtering. Pressure equalization and pressure sealing structures. Radio communications. Sattelites. Digital devices and digital communications. Actuators and electrical motors. Hydraulics.

Of course, the knowledge base represented by the above sample just dropped from heaven like mana, without any participation from science. You're right. Scientists are totally useless, and both the U.S. government and all the U.S. aerospace companies must immediately fire all of their scientific personnel. Actually, all such spending should have ceased even from before the inception of the airplane. As a matter of fact, no resources should have ever been spent on flight research. Who wants to fly anyway?

That you must be a complete idiot to propose that the modern atomic science is comparable to that of the Greeks.

Scientists generate quite a bit more than just lists of numbers. First and most obviously, they generate the apparatus that produce the numbers to begin with. Even more importantly, they also generate mathematical models based on those numbers. The models are indispensable to engineers, and in fact without the models engineering cannot proceed. Scientists generate theory. Engineers apply the theory.

Have you ever attempted to optimize a shock absorber? How about constructing an amplifier circuit from transistors? I doubt you have, because if you did then you would have had to calculate your way through some equations if you were ever to arrive at optimal answers -- in which case you would have already been quite aware of the inseparability of science and engineering.

You're the one living in a fairy tale. I'm still waiting for you to enter the real world.

Most people think of "pollution" in terms of the most significant observable pollution: e.g. global warming, acid rain, nuclear waste, water pollution.

Scientists have been proposing alternative, demonstrably clean technologies for over a century but those technologies repeatedly get shoved under the rug. Why? Because they threaten the prevailing industry. The real culprit is not science; it's the so-called "free" market which in reality is not free at all but controlled by its giants in collusion with the government they buy off. Even now our country is headed by two fossil fuel barons with nuclear leanings. Kyoto protocol? What Kyoto protocol?

Science didn't produce and market DDT. DDT is a commercial product. Ain't it grand when companies rush their products out to market without adequately testing them first (or worse, having tested and chosen to ignore the harmful side-effects)? How did you like the tobacco wars?

 

Re: Tony1

*Originally posted by machaon
Please do not take all this blatant disregard for your beliefs personally.*

Why would I start now?

*You see it as your holy mission to discredit, without diligent consideration, the views of people whose reality is funneled through a world described by the observation of the natural world.*

I'd agree with you, except for the "without diligent consideration" part.
I've given plenty of diligent consideration to the views which I discredit; it's why I discredit them.

* Your antagonist see it as their holy mission to discredit the only way you know how to make sense of the world, and it is very threatening.*

It's not the least bit threatening, because I can make sense of the world in many different ways.
You are confusing my opponents, who are the ones who have only a single way of making sense of the world, with me.
I am attacking that one way, and it is very threatening.

*It is not easy to reshape who you are.*

That's why Christians are who they are; all have had to reshape themselves.
No atheist has had to, so the fear factor among atheists is very strong.

*Originally posted by Bambi
Babbage. Turing. Von Neumann. You were saying? *

You named people who predate the existence of the game called "computer science."

*Electronics. Airfoil. Jet engine. Lightweight materials. Sensors. Jet fuel. Aerodynamic stability. Drag reduction. Navigation instruments. Load bearing structures and load distribution. Acoustics. Heat conduction and distribution. Autopilot. In-air maneuvering. Landing and takeoff aerodynamics. Air conditioning and filtering. Pressure equalization and pressure sealing structures. Radio communications. Sattelites. Digital devices and digital communications. Actuators and electrical motors. Hydraulics. *

Neat list, but what does it have to do with your point?

*As a matter of fact, no resources should have ever been spent on flight research. *

Now you're talking about resources.
What has that got to do with scientists?

*That you must be a complete idiot to propose that the modern atomic science is comparable to that of the Greeks. *

Of course I don't think they are comparable.
The Greeks were way ahead of their time.

*Scientists generate quite a bit more than just lists of numbers. First and most obviously, they generate the apparatus that produce the numbers to begin with. Even more importantly, they also generate mathematical models based on those numbers. The models are indispensable to engineers, and in fact without the models engineering cannot proceed.*

First and most obviously, the first scientist, whoever that might be, would have had to have used existing apparatus.
Every since that point, every single scientist has been using existing apparatus.
Engineers have been around much longer than your revised history of science and engineering would indicate.
They predate pretty much any scientific discipline you would care to mention.

*Have you ever attempted to optimize a shock absorber? How about constructing an amplifier circuit from transistors? I doubt you have, because if you did then you would have had to calculate your way through some equations if you were ever to arrive at optimal answers -- in which case you would have already been quite aware of the inseparability of science and engineering.*

I have, so your doubts are misplaced.
You appear to be confusing math with science.

*You're the one living in a fairy tale. I'm still waiting for you to enter the real world. *

That is sort of like the other prisoner's dilemma.
How do you know for sure which side of the bars you're on?

*Science didn't produce and market DDT*

Ah, the other atheist "true" Scotsman argument.
"True" science would never develop anything harmful.

 

Tony you have a warped idea of the definition of scientists. By the definition anyone that creates an object or puts forth a theory based upon observation and a little trial and error, is a scientist. Does one need a degree to be a scientist? The answer a resounding no.

*Originally posted by Tony1
First and most obviously, the first scientist, whoever that might be, would have had to have used existing apparatus.
Every since that point, every single scientist has been using existing apparatus.
Engineers have been around much longer than your revised history of science and engineering would indicate.
They predate pretty much any scientific discipline you would care to mention. *

Here you go again with blatant lies. In your first case it is very likely that the apparatus was the eye. Observation is not limited to mechanics. While it may often occur that one scientist creates a device and another makes use of it, this isn't always so. And think to the many times that a theory it perpetuated and later proven by mechanics. They are not exclusive in any manner and their similar processes lead us to define them with similar titles. Saying that engineers predate scientists is completely false. In order to creat a device one must first make an observation and draw some sort of conclusion from the data. Where I am from this process is known as the scientific method. Any person that employs this tool is a scientist, with or without their awareness of the title.

*Ah, the other atheist "true" Scotsman argument.
"True" science would never develop anything harmful.*

Every study will have its share wrong paths. Would you say that the Christian Religion is without these calamities? (Both Inquisitions, a Crusade, Salem Witch Trials, etc.) Any study is only as good as the people that pursue it. Science is a little blameless, as it can often defeat efforts to predict its consequences. If you look to the scientific blunders, however, you will see a pattern of ignorance at higher levels of authority in government and business.

Tony1 please make an effort to check your definitions in the future.

 

?$D?4$inally posted by Teg
Tony you have a warped idea of the definition of scientists. By the definition anyone that creates an object or puts forth a theory based upon observation and a little trial and error, is a scientist. Does one need a degree to be a scientist? The answer a resounding no.[/i]*

Real scientists might take exception to that.

*Here you go again with blatant lies. In your first case it is very likely that the apparatus was the eye.*

If the first apparatus was the eye and what I said was a lie, then the first scientist created the eye.

Are you sure you have a grasp of the issue?

*Any person that employs this tool is a scientist, with or without their awareness of the title.*

You're saying that being a scientist is a titular thing?

* Would you say that the Christian Religion is without these calamities? (Both Inquisitions, a Crusade, Salem Witch Trials, etc.)*

What does all of that have to do with Christianity?

*If you look to the scientific blunders, however, you will see a pattern of ignorance*

Yup. That's my point, too.
There is a definite pattern of ignorance.

 

Tony1 I know you are quite skilled at removing statements from context. Now you have wrought a new low.

*Originally posted by Tony1
*If you look to the scientific blunders, however, you will see a pattern of ignorance*

Yup. That's my point, too.
There is a definite pattern of ignorance.*

This confirms my suspicions that you lack a formal education. The original statement was:

"If you look to the scientific blunders, however, you will see a pattern of ignorance at higher levels of authority in government and business."

Any educated person will tell you that an ommission so integral to the statement is bad form. Worse yet you missed the proper "..." that should follow the incomplete quote. It is not possible to have an intelligable debate without a coherent set of rules.

** Would you say that the Christian Religion is without these calamities? (Both Inquisitions, a Crusade, Salem Witch Trials, etc.)*

What does all of that have to do with Christianity?*

I am also concerned with your inability to relate to subjects from history. Have you any knowledge at all?

**Any person that employs this tool is a scientist, with or without their awareness of the title.*

You're saying that being a scientist is a titular thing?*

You missed my point as usual. I said the exact opposite. You were applying a title and I was saying that acts of science are sufficient to name a person a scientist. The word scientist has a broad definition. Your limitations are too restrictive.

*If the first apparatus was the eye and what I said was a lie, then the first scientist created the eye.

Are you sure you have a grasp of the issue?*

Is not the eye an apparatus? You are a limited individual. You state that science requires some sort of complex machine. This is a false assumption. Tell that to Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato. They didn't have any machines made by engineers. They relied upon observations and their brain's ability to decipher lifes mysteries. Sometimes they were right and other times not (especially the cosmos, ugh!), but whatever they did was based upon reason.

And what about Newton? The laws of nature and Calculous. Not bad for someone that was basically a mathematician. Are math and science really so different?

*Real scientists might take exception to that.

Would you say Einstein wasn't a scientist? What about the Wright Brothers? Again you come back to the titular argument. I reiterate, you are a limited being.

 

*Originally posted by Teg
"Originally posted by Tony1
If you look to the scientific blunders, however, you will see a pattern of ignorance*

Yup. That's my point, too.
There is a definite pattern of ignorance."

This confirms my suspicions that you lack a formal education. The original statement was:

"If you look to the scientific blunders, however, you will see a pattern of ignorance at higher levels of authority in government and business."*

So, we both see a pattern of ignorance, and you have a problem with that?

*Any educated person will tell you that an ommission so integral to the statement is bad form. Worse yet you missed the proper "..." that should follow the incomplete quote. It is not possible to have an intelligable debate without a coherent set of rules.*

Does "intelligability" include spelling ability, or is the ability to spell no longer an indication of education?

*I am also concerned with your inability to relate to subjects from history. Have you any knowledge at all?*

If I follow your logic correctly...
Something happened in the past.
If it was bad, the Christians did it.

Am I following you correctly?

*You missed my point as usual. I said the exact opposite. You were applying a title and I was saying that acts of science are sufficient to name a person a scientist. The word scientist has a broad definition. Your limitations are too restrictive.*

You seem unaware of the meaning of your statements.
You mentioned "awareness of the title."

Presumably, a person would be a "true" scientist if he does scientific things AND he is aware of the title [sic].

*Is not the eye an apparatus?*

Are you completely incapable of following your own train of reasoning?
I said the first scientist used existing apparatus.
Now after hemming and hawing for a while, you ask if the eye is not an apparatus.
I still say the first scientist used existing apparatus, the eye for one.

I realize that you are unwilling to admit that I might be right about anything, but try to take the long way around when you are denying it.

Here is a symbolic example of what you are doing...

I say "a."
You say, "not a. Is not a?"

Normally people who are unwilling to admit the other person is correct try to throw a "b" and "c" in there to divert attention.

*Tell that to Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato.
...
but whatever they did was based upon reason.*

And the sacrifice of chickens.

--He was beginning to grow cold about the groin, when he uncovered his face, for he had covered himself up, and said--they were his last words--he said: "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; (1) will you remember to pay the debt?
-- Phaedo (Jowett)

While the cock-groin thing is amusing, Socrates was talking about chickens.
He retained his sense of irony until the end, though, Asclepius being the Greek god of medicine.

*And what about Newton? The laws of nature and Calculous. Not bad for someone that was basically a mathematician. Are math and science really so different?*

Well, let's compare integral calculus with say, the "science" of evolutionary psychology.
Are math and science really so similar that you can't tell them apart?

*Again you come back to the titular argument. I reiterate, you are a limited being. *

Who are you conversing with?
Since I haven't iterated it, I can't reiterate it, but you seem to be a trifle confused.

 

The tangled web

Tony,

I wager you don't have a definition of what science is or who a scientist is. What you've said so far is ridiculous and meaningless (e.g. a guy who generates lists of numbers.)

In everyone else's definition, there is a smooth continuum between purely applied and purely theoretical science. Engineers are mostly applied scientists, researchers are somewhere in the middle, and theorists and mathematicians are at the theoretical end. Perhaps you ought to reexamine your mental caricatures, as they obviously conflict with reality.

 

Re: The tangled web

*Originally posted by Bambi
I wager you don't have a definition of what science is or who a scientist is. What you've said so far is ridiculous and meaningless (e.g. a guy who generates lists of numbers.)*

Show me a scientist who doesn't generate lists of numbers.
Evolutionary psychologists excepted, of course, due to the double whammy of fantasy, i.e. they aren't scientists.

*In everyone else's definition, there is a smooth continuum between purely applied and purely theoretical science. Engineers are mostly applied scientists, researchers are somewhere in the middle, and theorists and mathematicians are at the theoretical end. Perhaps you ought to reexamine your mental caricatures, as they obviously conflict with reality. *

I don't need to reexamine mine since I'm lampooning yours.

You seem to have this idea of scientists as people who have a strong vision of how life could be, and dedicate their lives to the improvement of mankind.

I have an idea of the guy sitting next to me in the fourth grade unable to tie his shoelaces.
He struggles with simple concepts in class, gets Bs and Cs, and gets all fired up about rockets or something.
Occasionally, he gets As but looks like he got dressed in something he found in a dumpster.
In other words, he's just an ordinary schmoe, but according to you, I should take his opinions as my gospel.

Well, not likely.

 

Re: Re: The tangled web

Originally posted by tony1

Show me an engineer who doesn't generate lists of numbers (and I mean a <u>modern</u> engineer.)

I don't know why you insist on dragging evolutionary psychologists into this discussion, but since you do then I'll briefly go over what I think of psychologists in general (evolutionary or otherwise.) There are some psychologists who are indeed scientists; they construct models of cognition and test those models experimentally. There are also psychologists that I would classify as pseudoscientists. Freud would be a well-known representative of the latter.

Hmm, an appealing ideal but no. My view of scientists is mostly that of people who have undertaken to rigorously structure and work to expand their knowledge of some domain(s) of the universe.

Opinions are quite different from theories. The latter are rigorous and substantiated. And also scrutinized by many more "schmoes" than that single one. Plus, the "schmoe" also brings you more than just theories -- he brings you the actual experiments he designed, set up and conducted, as well as the experimental outcomes. Other "schmoes" have examined and repeated these steps, and arrived at the same outcomes. You can also repeat the experiment yourself if you wish -- but you can be pretty sure that if the scientific establishment strongly supports a theory it's because they have been argumentatively convinced and not because they wish to believe it.

I would also like to point out that while there indeed are cases of such "schmoes" as you described, if you look at the past school performance of the scientific community in general you will find they represent the cream of the crop. As a whole, they are much more intellectually capable and active than an ordinary schmoe. Consider how hard it is to get into a Ph.D graduate program, and you will realise that the stellar performance is carried through undergraduate college as well.

 

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior

If you ask people what Galileo is famous for, most will say that he invented the telescope, used it to prove the Earth goes around the Sun, and that the Catholic Church ostracized him for his discoveries. That much is common knowledge, no? In fact, none of those things is true. Galileo did not invent the telescope. When and where the telescope was invented is not certain, but what is certain is that in 1609 Galileo heard about the new invention and made one for himself. Soon he turned it on the heavens, and it was at that moment that his destiny turned to fame. A new universe Every night brought new discoveries: He discovered that the Milky Way was not a soft band of light but a cloud of millions and millions of stars, that the moon was covered with craters, that Venus has phases like the Moon, even that the Sun has spots on its face. (Looking at the Sun through a telescope is probably what doomed Galileo to blindness later in his life. Don't try it.) Excited beyond measure by his discoveries, Galileo in 1610 published a little book ("Siderius Nuncius," or "The Starry Messenger") detailing his discoveries. The Starry Messenger made Galileo an overnight celebrity, and his discoveries did not go unnoticed by officials of the Catholic Church, many of whom were scholarly individuals with an interest in the sciences. Some of the leading cardinals of the Church were fellow members of the scientific society to which Galileo belonged, and took great interest and pride in the discoveries of their most famous member. The Church also lauded Galileo publicly. He had a friendly audience with Pope Paul V, and in 1611 the Jesuit Roman College held a day of ceremonies to honor Galileo. When in 1614 a Dominican monk criticized Galileo from the pulpit, the leader of the Dominican order publicly reprimanded the monk and apologized to Galileo on behalf of the entire order. A questionable conclusion What did get Galileo into a bit of hot water with the Church was a conclusion he drew from one of his telescopic discoveries: He discovered that Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it just as the Moon does the Earth. He was fascinated by this, and from this and from observing the phases of Venus (which indicated that Venus orbits the Sun, not the Earth) he concluded that the Earth goes around the Sun (a view known as heliocentrism), not the Sun around the Earth (known as geocentrism). Today Galileo's conclusion seems obvious. But it was not obvious at the time, and the truth is that Galileo was jumping to conclusions unsupported by the facts. The fact that four moons orbit Jupiter does not in any way prove that the Earth goes around the Sun, and neither does the fact that Venus shows phases as it orbits the Sun. A popular theory at the time (known as the "Tychoan" theory after Tycho Brahe, the famous Danish astronomer who had formulated it) proposed that all the planets orbit the Sun, and the Sun with its retinue of planets then orbits the Earth. This theory explained Galileo's observations quite well, and many pointed that out to Galileo. But Galileo insisted that what he had found was proof of the Earth orbiting the Sun, which was not true: He eventually turned out to be right, but what he had at the time was not proof. And it was that lack of proof, along with his own abrasive personality, that precipitated his troubles with the Church. Galileo was known for his very arrogant manner, and during his career he had amassed a great number of people whom he had slighted, insulted, or in some way made into enemies. In 1615 some of them saw a chance to get back at Galileo by accusing him of heresy for his assertion that heliocentrism was proven fact. And so it was that the Church was prompted to inquire whether Galileo was holding views contrary to Scripture. A difficult question It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the Sun goes around the Earth or vice versa Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded. Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church, but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others held that it was not. In fact Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm Galileo's discoveries. So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church's Master of Controversial Questions. (Quite a title, isn't it?) After careful study of the matter and of Galileo's evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo in one regard: He admonished Galileo not to teach that the Earth moves around the Sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right. Galileo's luckiest day And so it was that Galileo chafed under the cardinal's admonition for most of a decade, until in 1623 the luckiest event in his life occurred: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a member of Galileo's scientific society and a great fan of Galileo, became Pope Urban VIII. This was Galileo's dream come true, a Pope who was learned in the sciences, who had not only read all of Galileo's works but was a friend and admirer as well. Galileo was soon summoned to Rome for an audience with the Pope to discuss the latest in astronomy, and Galileo took the opportunity to ask the Pope for his blessing to write a book about the motions of the solar system. The Pope readily agreed to Galileo's request, with one condition: The book must present a balanced view of both heliocentrism and geocentrism. The Pope also asked Galileo to mention the Pope's personal view of the matter, which was that bodies in the heavens perhaps move in ways that are not understood on Earth (not an unreasonable view at the time). Galileo agreed, and set forth to write his book. Twisting the knife And had Galileo written his book as promised, there would have been no problem. But as he had many times before, Galileo was bent not only on arguing his case but on humiliating those who disagreed with him, and he wrote a book far different from what he had promised. As was common at the time, he wrote the book in the form of a discussion among three men: one a proponent of heliocentrism, one a proponent of geocentrism, and an interested bystander. Unfortunately the "dialogue" was very one-sided: Galileo portrayed the proponent of heliocentrism as witty, intelligent, and well informed, with the bystander often persuaded by him, while the proponent of geocentrism (whom Galileo named "Simplicius") was portrayed as slow-witted, often caught in his own errors, and something of a dolt. This was hardly a balanced presentation of views. But Galileo's greatest mistake was his final twisting of the knife: He fulfilled his promise to mention the Pope's view of the matter, but he did so by putting the Pope's words in the mouth of the dim-witted Simplicius. This was no subtle jab; the Pope's views were well known and everyone immediately realized that this was a very pointed insult. This was too much for the Pope to bear. He was furious, and Galileo was summoned to Rome to explain himself. An unhappy ending This time things did not go well for Galileo. He was charged with a number of offenses, and though he was not imprisoned or tortured, he was shown the frightening implements of torture. Galileo, by then an old man, was terrified, and agreed to something of a plea bargain: In return for publicly recanting his heliocentric view, he was allowed to return home with a sentence of permanent house arrest. He lived out his remaining years in his home, eventually going blind. Curiously, it was during his years of house arrest that he wrote his finest work, a book dealing with motion and inertia that is a cornerstone of modern physics. It's interesting to note that during all of Galileo's conflicts with the Church, other astronomers, including the equally famous Johannes Kepler, were openly writing and teaching heliocentrism. Kepler even worked out and published the equations that describe the orbits of the planets about the Sun. Yet he never had the problems Galileo did, in part because he had less to do with the Catholic Church, but also because he did not have Galileo's biting arrogance. So it was that it was Galileo's mean and spiteful manner, his knack for turning even his best friends into enemies, that repeatedly got Galileo in trouble. His accomplishments cannot be overstated - Galileo truly is one of the giants of science - but in recounting his famous run-in with the Church it's also important to remember that the real root of his problems (other than the Church's excessive power at the time) were not his scientific views, but his own unbridled arrogance.

 

Re: Re: Re: The tangled web

*Originally posted by Bambi
Show me an engineer who doesn't generate lists of numbers (and I mean a <u>modern</u> engineer.)*

Do you even know what engineers do?
Pretty much every engineer has to create some object or he isn't doing his job.

*There are also psychologists that I would classify as pseudoscientists. Freud would be a well-known representative of the latter.*

Wow, I find this almost incomprehensible!
You, an atheist, actually agreeing with me, a Christian, about something as crucial as what a scientist is.

So, the only real difference, aside from the religion thing, is where you and I draw the line between pseudo and science.

*Hmm, an appealing ideal but no. My view of scientists is mostly that of people who have undertook to rigorously structure and work to expand their knowledge of some domain(s) of the universe.*

There is that fictional "rigor" concept again.
Where do you get the idea that scientists are somehow more "rigorous" than other people?
Is everyone who is not a scientist just a complete slackass?

Or are you slyly injecting some humor into the situation by suggesting that scientists are actually suffering from early-onset rigor mortis?

*Opinions are quite different from theories.*

---theory \The"o*ry\, n.; pl. Theories. [F. th['e]orie, L. theoria, Gr. ? a beholding, spectacle, contemplation, speculation, fr. ? a spectator, ? to see, view. See Theater.]
1. A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation.---
Webster's

*The latter are rigorous and substantiated.*

O yes, speculation is muuuuuch more rigorous and substantiated than opinion.

*And also scrutinized by many more "schmoes" than that single one. Plus, the "schmoe" also brings you more than just theories -- he brings you the actual experiments he designed, set up and conducted, as well as the experimental outcomes. *

And we all know that there is no such thing as a poorly designed experiment.

*you can be pretty sure that if the scientific establishment strongly supports a theory it's because they have been argumentatively convinced and not because they wish to believe it. *

Well, you've almost convinced me that some geeky kid who couldn't tell his ass from a hole in the ground is right because a whole bunch of similar geeks agrees with him.

What is such a principle called anyway?

It sounds like some kind of fallacy, where a single individual is wrong, but a group holding the same thought is magically transformed into being correct.

Besides, don't tell me that you don't wish to believe that evolution is true, as though you've been convinced in spite of yourself.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: The tangled web

Originally posted by tony1

You still haven't answered the question. Or are you under the impression that engineers do not have to quantify the response of various components of their devices to various conditions, or to conduct systematic tests of their devices to quantify their performance?

You don't even have a definition of science that makes sense (or shared by the rest of the human race.) So of course your claims of authority on what is or is not pseudoscience must carry extra weight in this discussion.

Some of the "rigor" concept is due to mathematical modeling. Mathematics is a methodology of systematic and precise thought. The rest of the "rigor" concept comes from cross-validation and independent replication.

Scientific theories, Tony. Scientific theories.

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

That's why they are scrutinized and reproduced before they are accepted. And if an error still creeps through, it will be exposed in the future when the results conflict directly or indirectly with another experiment's results. That's called cross-validation.

In view of reality, it is much more acceptable to believe the "geeky" kids than another bunch of goons whose commonality stems from some religion.

You're the one who's been supporting the notion that prevalence of religion implies correctness thereof.

I don't wish to believe in evolution. I merely wish to understand where life as we know it today comes from. So far, evolution has been more than acceptable as an explanation (even if only a partial explanation as of today.)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tangled web

*Originally posted by Bambi
You still haven't answered the question. Or are you under the impression that engineers do not have to quantify the response of various components of their devices to various conditions, or to conduct systematic tests of their devices to quantify their performance?*

Well, it goes back to the word "generate."
Scientists generate lists of numbers as the be-all and end-all of their profession.
The engineer uses numbers in the pursuit of his actual objective, which is to generate something other than a list of numbers.

*So of course your claims of authority on what is or is not pseudoscience must carry extra weight in this discussion.*

Well, thanks.
That was easy.
I expected more of a fight before you'd concede a point like that.

*Some of the "rigor" concept is due to mathematical modeling. Mathematics is a methodology of systematic and precise thought. The rest of the "rigor" concept comes from cross-validation and independent replication.*

No wonder some scientists come across as though they were afflicted with rigor mortis.
Of course, "cross-validation" while sounding very rigorous and precise, essentially amounts to some idiot who thinks the same way you do saying that you're right because he's right.

Very confidence-inspiring.

*Scientific theories, Tony. Scientific theories.*

Scientific speculation, Bambi. Scientific speculation.

*5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
Merriam-Webster online dictionary.*

---plau·si·ble adj.
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking:---

I note how your definition equates "scientifically acceptable" with "plausible" using the conjunction "or."

Why we disagree is beyond me.
I think science is seemingly valid, and gives a deceptive impression of truth.

So do you, based on the dictionary definitions you are giving me.

How is it we disagree, when all evidence points to agreement?

*That's why they are scrutinized and reproduced before they are accepted.*

Or at least, when they are considered to be "seemingly acceptable."

*And if an error still creeps through, it will be exposed in the future when the results conflict directly or indirectly with another experiment's results. That's called cross-validation.*

It would be if that is what actually were to happen.
In reality, scientists spend most of their time disagreeing with each other, to the point that it is difficult to tell when they are validating and when they are merely cross.

*In view of reality, it is much more acceptable to believe the "geeky" kids than another bunch of goons whose commonality stems from some religion.*

While I appreciate the humor inherent in your comment, the fact is that those geeky kids (I hope you weren't actually one of them, please say that you took part in some sport or something) are usually claiming to have discovered something new.
Young kids claiming some new thing usually means that somebody didn't check their work.

Then again, maybe your definition of "acceptable" hews more toward the "seemingly acceptable."

*You're the one who's been supporting the notion that prevalence of religion implies correctness thereof.*

Not really, otherwise I'd have to argue that Catholicism has it all over Christianity, being far more numerous.

*I don't wish to believe in evolution.*

Oh you poor thing!
Believing in evolution against your wishes!
How horrible!

*I merely wish to understand where life as we know it today comes from.*

Well, that's where we differ.
I wish to to understand where life actually comes from.

*So far, evolution has been more than acceptable as an explanation (even if only a partial explanation as of today.) *

Well, you did convince me of its "plausibility" today, so your efforts haven't been wasted.
Mind you, I was pretty much convinced already that it is a "plausible" theory, although I was leaning more toward "far-fetched."

Now I am definitely convinced that it has a "deceptive appearance of truth or reliability."

I have this nagging suspicion that your standards for acceptability are very, very low, especially given the definitions you've been throwing at me, as well as the ones I located myself.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tangled web

Originally posted by tony1

Those aren't "scientists" as most understand the term. They are called "lab assistants".

Sounds like a scientist to me.

Of course, I choose definition 1. Clearly, it is the only one that applies considering its usage is supposed to be synonymous with "scientifically acceptable". But you can twist ideas and mince words to your heart's content. Just be warned: you won't gain anything by such toil.

The same should be said of U.S. Congress men and women. Yet, they still manage to get the job done (eventually.) At any rate, disagreement and discussion are healthy (when they are polite and constructive.) When they are lacking, it's called stagnation.

You have quite a caricature of science in your mind. Most scientists are actually quite well-adjusted. Especially these days, they have to be -- they have to fight for grants, network with coleagues, manage laboratories...

While I'm not entirely a scientist by profession, I was indeed one of those geeky kids. Of course, I did take part in sports. But most people these days simply define a "nerd", or "geek", as someone who likes to learn and think. Quite understandable, this derision, stemming from a Christian culture.

Sometimes. But at other times they really did discover something new. By the way, young kids these days rarely do research on their own; they are typically part of a lab or a research group, and under tutelage and supervision of at least one accredited Ph. D.

No, it's just you.

It's that selective attention thing again. You really should see a shrink.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tangled web

*Originally posted by Bambi
Those aren't "scientists" as most understand the term. They are called "lab assistants".*

I think you're right.
That leaves the scientists doing nothing at all while their lab assistants do all the work.
Of course, the "team" generates lists of numbers, and the scientist then generates the hot air "explaining" the lists.

*Sounds like a scientist to me.*

Sounds like, but isn't.
A scientist merely needs to produce a bubble of hot air, whereas the engineer has to produce a real object.

*Of course, I choose definition 1. Clearly, it is the only one that applies considering its usage is supposed to be synonymous with "scientifically acceptable".*

"Clearly" is merely fallacious argument talk for "anything but."
However, in this case, you may be on to something inadvertently.

I think your choice is serendipitous because of the term "seemingly."
So, I do have to agree with you again, galling though it may be, that science produces "seemingly" valid stuff.

*At any rate, disagreement and discussion are healthy (when they are polite and constructive.) When they are lacking, it's called stagnation.*

Some would call it a fight when politeness and constructivity are lacking.
I can only assume that you are so enured to bickering that you call it stagnation.

*You have quite a caricature of science in your mind. Most scientists are actually quite well-adjusted. Especially these days, they have to be -- they have to fight for grants, network with coleagues, manage laboratories...*

That is very difficult.
They have to ask for money, talk to people, and unlock doors and turn lights on and off.
What incredible demands science places on scientists!!!

*While I'm not entirely a scientist by profession, I was indeed one of those geeky kids. Of course, I did take part in sports.*

Whew, you weren't one of those geeky kids.

*But most people these days simply define a "nerd", or "geek", as someone who likes to learn and think. Quite understandable, this derision, stemming from a Christian culture.*

Geek and nerd usually refer to non-well-adjusted people.
Usually it applies to people who don't actually like to learn and think.
It applies to people who withdraw into a world of science fiction and fantasy.
Well-adjusted kids who do like to learn and think are generally referred to as "normal," at least among Christians.
Perhaps they are viewed as "geeks" by atheists who normally shy away from the rigors of thought.

*No, it's just you.*

No, I'm pretty sure you're the one showing me the definitions from the dictionary which define "scientific" thinking as plausible, seemingly acceptable, deceptive speculations.

*It's that selective attention thing again. You really should see a shrink. *

Let's look at one of those definitions again...

--- plau·si·ble adj.
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking---

Nothing selective about my attention, there.
All three meanings give a negative connotation to the word.
Why would I wish to define that particular word?

Because of your own research into the meaning of the word "theory" ...

"5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Merriam-Webster online dictionary."

Speaking of selective attention, what's that number 5 doing there?
Could it be that the first 4 definitions threw a monkey wrench into your point?