Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 03:45

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:54e7437a-61b1-4429-a51b-3090568588f2(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On 1 Mar, 17:14, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:51 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> > Stop making me laugh Peter. I have surely forgotten more about
> > >> > evolution than you'll ever know, because you typify arrogance and
> > >> > closed-mindedness.
>
> > >> I laughed when you first said what you thought evolution was about.
>
> > >> You said it explained the origon of life (amongst other things).
>
> > >> Evolution says nothing about that at all.
>
> > > Guffaw! "Evolution says nothing about the origin of life at all". I
> > > wonder if Dirk van de Moortel would like that one for his "immortal
> > > fumbles" page.
>
> > Interesting that you have forgotten more about evolution than I will
> > ever
> > know, because I can't actually recall Darwin's theory of evolution as
> > saying
> > anything at all about the origins of life.
>
> > What do you think it says about the origins of life, exactly?
>
> > (See. Like I said. You know even less about evolution than you do about
> > SR.)
>
> Peter, here you go:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis=/=
> evolution
>
> "In the natural sciences, abiogenesis (pronounced /eɪˌbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/,
> ay-BYE-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth
> could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused
> with evolution,. . ."

Well I'm not sure I'd rely on Wikipedia for a contentious subject like
this, but in any event we needn't talk specifically about how the
basic DNA first developed. If we simply talk of the diversity of life
on Earth, evolution is still unfalsifiable, because it makes no
definite predictions about what you will see. Indeed it does not
describe the characteristics of any common ancestor, and nor does it
predict the evolution of any particular animal with any particular
traits.

_________________________________
So, just to confirm, despite (apparently) "having forgotten more about
evolution than I will ever know", when you said evolution explained the
origins of life, you were in fact completely wrong, demonstrating that you
don't even know what evolution is about?

And, again just to confirm, as you have no idea of what evolution is even
the study of, you therefore do in fact know even less about evolution than
you do about SR?



From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 04:02
> And so law is a religion?
> And medicine is a religion?
> Not in my understanding of the word religion.

To go back to my original formulation of this issue, the question is
whether science, scientists, and adherents of science more generally,
have the same hallmarks as traditional religions, theologians, and
religious believers more generally. These are not questions of the
supposed scientific method,

___________________________
Well, yes, they are, at least primarily. What differentaites "science" from
"religion" is in fact the scientific method, you are excluding the correct
answer to most of your questions.

but of the psychology and sociology of how
science is actually practiced. In the same way that the question of
how Christianity has been in fact practiced is not determined by
reference to the Bible.

_________________________
At this point I actually laughed. What little you know of science, you know
less about scientists, have you ever even met one? Do you read many
scholarly journals, or attend scientific conferences? Tell us, what is the
closest personal knowledge you have of an actual scientist?


To start asking questions like "is law a religion" or "is medicine a
religion" is like asking whether canon law "was a religion", or
whether faith healers "are a religion", and of course the answer is
no. Canon law is informed by religious belief, and faith healers are
religious, but neither of them alone comprise "a religion".

________________________
But science is not religion. The core of science is the scientific method.
The core of religion is faith, which is almost the anti-thesis. Scemtific
theories are fundamentally different to religious beliefs; scientific
theories have to be falsifiable and withstand the process; religious beliefs
do not. If we are talking about science vs religion, them's teh facts.



Also, my point here is not to get into a long (and surely fruitless)
debate of arguing how exactly religion is defined. My point is that,
from a social and psychological perspective, an adherence to science
cannot be distinguished from religious belief in any meaningful and
significant way,

__________________________
Except through the scientific method.


and that the supposed differences tend to be either
based on a misapprehension of what function religion actually
performed and how it was practiced in the past, or on a literal appeal
to concepts like "the scientific method" that bears little
correspondence to how science is really practiced.

___________________________
What do you know exactly about how science is practiced, and why do you
think that scientists don't folow the scientific method? Do you actually
know any scientists?





> > > You've said those are different because the stakes are somehow higher
> > > with science. I also disputed that.
>
> > Did I say that? I don't recall saying that, and if I did say it I can
> > only imagine it was said in a different context.
>
> You said that plumbing and architecture make no claims about the
> fundamental nature of the universe, implying that this somehow excuses
> them where physics should not be.

What I meant, if I remember correctly, was simply that plumbing and
architecture don't make claims as to their own "truth" or the truth of
anything else, and especially not the kind of truth that has any
sociological relevance.



> > > Just because there is an agreed-upon methodology by the collective
> > > that practices in the discipline does not warrant that discipline
> > > being called a religion, at least as I understand the meaning of
> > > "religion".
>
> > There is more to religion than an "agreed-upon methodology", but there
> > is more to the practice of science than this, too.
>
> Then you'll have to be precise about your meaning of the word
> "religion" and therefore how it is that science satisfies it.

I personally think it's more convenient to compare and contrast,
rather than trying to establish a definition for either religion or
science. Indeed, attempts to establish a consistent definition of
science, by men better than me, have time and again died a thousand
deaths.

From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 04:15
And hence, when I say I want to discuss things instead
of just going off and reading a book, it's not because I'm being
awkward or just want to sound off cranky ideas to an audience, but
because I genuinely apprehend that the interactive discussion is
necessary for the questions at hand.

_____________________________
That is obviously not true. You don't ask questions trying to learn. You
state your open disbelief that SR is true, you constantly dispute reasonable
explanations, you hide behind word games, you change the topic when cornered
on some matter of technical fact, you play passive/aggressive games, you
constantly go off at tangents, you criticise science as a whole when you are
pretending to try and learn it, and the whole time you are telling us what
an expert you are in physics and evolution ...

These are not the marks of somebody trying to learn, but they are the marks
of a crank.


From: Ste on 2 Mar 2010 06:09
On 1 Mar, 23:39, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:39 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You see, it is not at all obvious that there is a "gravity" at all,
> though the effects that we would attribute to gravity are certainly
> there. But perhaps there is no physical gravity at all. As you say, no
> one --- including you --- would be able to supply any undeniable
> description of gravity other than by virtue of its effects. Newton did
> not attempt. Thus it is open whether there is any such "thing" at all.

I agree. Personally I'd put money on gravity being a manifestation of
electromagnetism, but that is besides the point.



> > The fact that no one here seems to be able to give an answer is to me
> > evidence that some people here don't really know, or certainly don't
> > have a well-developed and well-thought-out knowledge of what Minkowski
> > actually means.
>
> I don't know why you would conclude that. If you stood on a street
> corner on London, near a busy taxi stand, and demanded that someone
> explain alternation of generations in plants, and no one responded to
> you, would you be right in concluding that none of the people at the
> taxi stand have well-thought-out knowledge of alternation of
> generations in plants? Would it be true even if the taxi stand was
> outside a conference of biologists and you were doing the same?

It has to be a judgment Paul, but when people are willing to spend a
lot of time claiming to know all about SR, but are not willing to
spend any time explaining it, then one has to ask whether they
actually know what they claim to know.

It is one thing to waylay a biologist in the street and be told "This
is the way it is, but I'm afraid I do not have more time to explain.
Good day to you, Sir", but I do not think those are the circumstances
here.

In any event, I don't want to get into a long discussion about what
factors I take into account in making such a judgment. Inevitably, I'm
drawing on a lifetime of interpersonal experience and donkey's years
of using discussion boards and newsgroups, and one naturally acquires
an intuition for other people's psychology.
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 06:45

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d641967-efb9-4c3b-a038-d42f7d92cc9e(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
On 1 Mar, 23:39, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:39 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You see, it is not at all obvious that there is a "gravity" at all,
> though the effects that we would attribute to gravity are certainly
> there. But perhaps there is no physical gravity at all. As you say, no
> one --- including you --- would be able to supply any undeniable
> description of gravity other than by virtue of its effects. Newton did
> not attempt. Thus it is open whether there is any such "thing" at all.

I agree. Personally I'd put money on gravity being a manifestation of
electromagnetism, but that is besides the point.

____________________________
Gee, that's funny, I thought you were here to learn, not tell us your own
crackpot theories.



> > The fact that no one here seems to be able to give an answer is to me
> > evidence that some people here don't really know, or certainly don't
> > have a well-developed and well-thought-out knowledge of what Minkowski
> > actually means.
>
> I don't know why you would conclude that. If you stood on a street
> corner on London, near a busy taxi stand, and demanded that someone
> explain alternation of generations in plants, and no one responded to
> you, would you be right in concluding that none of the people at the
> taxi stand have well-thought-out knowledge of alternation of
> generations in plants? Would it be true even if the taxi stand was
> outside a conference of biologists and you were doing the same?

It has to be a judgment Paul, but when people are willing to spend a
lot of time claiming to know all about SR, but are not willing to
spend any time explaining it, then one has to ask whether they
actually know what they claim to know.

________________________________
What hasn't been explained to you?

Have you any actual questions about SR that haven't been answered? You asked
many times for a "physical explanation" of it, but every answer that you are
given isn't good enough for you. Assume there isn't one, and learn it
anyway. Many other people, brighter and less lazy than you, do it everyday.


It is one thing to waylay a biologist in the street and be told "This
is the way it is, but I'm afraid I do not have more time to explain.
Good day to you, Sir", but I do not think those are the circumstances
here.

____________________________
What part of SR don't you understand, and would like explained to you?


In any event, I don't want to get into a long discussion about what
factors I take into account in making such a judgment. Inevitably, I'm
drawing on a lifetime of interpersonal experience and donkey's years
of using discussion boards and newsgroups, and one naturally acquires
an intuition for other people's psychology.

__________________________
As lifetime cranks and trolls so often do.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights