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: Ste on 8 Mar 2010 09:42
On 4 Mar, 18:27, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Mar, 15:54, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 1:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > This is what fundamentally sets apart things like creationism from
> > > > > > science. Whatever other hoops creationism manages to jump through, it
> > > > > > will never jump through the hoop of naturalism, and that is what
> > > > > > *fundamentally* sets it apart from science.
>
> > > > > And also FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes science from religion. Thanks.
>
> > > > Agreed, but then religion in general never claimed to be science,
>
> > > Agreed! And so science is not a religion in the same fashion.
>
> > No, but neither did one religion ever claim to be the other.
>
> > > > and
> > > > traditional religion is almost immediately identifiable by its
> > > > supernaturalism. Creationism is different in that it actually claims
> > > > to be scientific in some essential respects.
>
> > > Ah, yes, but as has been demonstrated even to layfolk (Dover v
> > > Kitsmiller), this is an unsupportable claim.
>
> > I agree. I'm glad you brought up that case. I just reviewed the
> > judgment quickly, and apparently the court agrees that the defining
> > essence of science is naturalism.
>
> Gee, I didn't read that into the judgment at all.

Then what did you read into it?
From: PD on 8 Mar 2010 14:12
On Mar 8, 8:42 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 Mar, 18:27, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 10:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 4 Mar, 15:54, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 1:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > This is what fundamentally sets apart things like creationism from
> > > > > > > science. Whatever other hoops creationism manages to jump through, it
> > > > > > > will never jump through the hoop of naturalism, and that is what
> > > > > > > *fundamentally* sets it apart from science.
>
> > > > > > And also FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes science from religion. Thanks.
>
> > > > > Agreed, but then religion in general never claimed to be science,
>
> > > > Agreed! And so science is not a religion in the same fashion.
>
> > > No, but neither did one religion ever claim to be the other.
>
> > > > > and
> > > > > traditional religion is almost immediately identifiable by its
> > > > > supernaturalism. Creationism is different in that it actually claims
> > > > > to be scientific in some essential respects.
>
> > > > Ah, yes, but as has been demonstrated even to layfolk (Dover v
> > > > Kitsmiller), this is an unsupportable claim.
>
> > > I agree. I'm glad you brought up that case. I just reviewed the
> > > judgment quickly, and apparently the court agrees that the defining
> > > essence of science is naturalism.
>
> > Gee, I didn't read that into the judgment at all.
>
> Then what did you read into it?

I didn't have to read into it. Take a look at page 64 of the 139-page
decision:
=======================================================
4. Whether ID is Science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find
that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court
takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three
different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a
determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the
centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity,
central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism
that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative
attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As
we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to
note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific
community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it
been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals
that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries,
science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain
natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62
(Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to
authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical
evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a
discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical
authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a
scientific idea’s worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In
deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the
existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not
consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. (9:21
(Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be
important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103
(Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science,
which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the
natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological
naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method.
============================================
You'll note the emphasis on "testability, rather than any ...
philosophical coherence" which provides a scientific idea's worth.
Note also (emph. mine) "This self-imposed CONVENTION of science, which
limits inquiry to TESTABLE, natural (NOT SUPERNATURAL) explanations
about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as
'methodological naturalism' and is sometimes known as the scientific
method."

Creationism (and it was also judged that Intelligent Design is thinly
disguised creationism) is simply not science, because it fails on the
metric of testability, which is an indispensable component of the
scientific method which in turn is indispensable to science.

It seems so plainly written to me.

PD
From: PD on 8 Mar 2010 14:14
On Mar 6, 5:58 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Mar, 15:59, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 4:55 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:057b5351-82a4-4487-8501-6308451c921a(a)x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > On 5 Mar, 01:31, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:8c0ae071-8d13-491b-92d0-cd2e2727af1a(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > On 4 Mar, 12:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> >> > Not really, because if the total acceleration is small, then so is
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > speed.
>
> > > >> >> That is a nonsense argument.  Acceleration can be small and speeds
> > > >> >> very
> > > >> >> large.
>
> > > >> > When I went to school, you could not have a large change of speed with
> > > >> > only a small amount of total acceleration.
>
> > > >> Then you were badly taught.
>
> > > >> a) if you start at speed 0.8c and acceleration at 0.00001 m/s/s .. then
> > > >> your
> > > >> speed is still large.  you claimed small acceleration means small speed
>
> > > >> b) if you start at speed 0.0 and acceleration at 0.00001 m/s/s .. then
> > > >> your
> > > >> speed after a million years will be quite fast.  Yet the acceleration was
> > > >> small and constant.
>
> > > >> You do realize that you cannot 'total' acceleration.  and acceleration of
> > > >> 1m/s/s followed by an acceleration of 1m/s/s is still an acceleration of
> > > >> 1m/s/s
>
> > > > In any event, we've resolved the meaning of "total acceleration" -
> > > > Mark suggests using the concept of "impulse" instead.
>
> > > You certainly are taking the long and painful route (for yourself and us) to
> > > learn the basics of physics.
>
> > Ste: This is exactly what I was telling you earlier, that people will
> > be less inclined to teach things on your terms, using your language
> > and indulging your lack of skills, and will advise you that it is more
> > efficient in the long run to teach after you've acquired some relevant
> > skills and vocabulary. You didn't seem to think this was the case, and
> > here you have others telling you the same thing. Reconsider?
>
> As I say Paul, the words "total acceleration" I think should have
> given people some clue as to the meaning - and indeed the more
> intelligent amongst us here did recognise the meaning, and suggested
> an alternative word. That said, in this case I'm happy to use an
> alternative formulation like "impulse", because I can see that it will
> add further precision to my meanings in future.
>
> It's quite different from the disputes that arose over words like
> "physical" and "material", where each side seems to battle childishly
> over whose idiosyncratic understanding of the word will prevail, when
> the time could be better used getting on with the substantive argument.

Excellent. Then since you see the value of using a precisely defined
term like "impulse", then I'm sure you'll have no problem using the
precisely defined meanings of "physical" and "material" as they are
understood in science.
From: PD on 8 Mar 2010 14:27
On Mar 6, 2:56 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:

>
> Just as some background, when I first studied EM waves in high school
> the teacher told us that the speed of light was always c.  If you were
> standing on the ground it was c, and it was c for those in an airplane
> flying by you.  I asked how that could be?  Why wasn't it c+v like it
> would be for a sound wave or a bullet.  His answer was "That's just
> the way nature made things."  When I didn't buy that answer he told me
> "Thousands of scientists say it works that way.  Who should I believe,
> them or you."

I'm sorry you had such a terrible HS science teacher. You would not
encounter this response in a decent college class.

>  Whe I didn't accept that as an explaination I was told
> that I could work the problems out my way and have them marked wrong,
> or I could work them out his way and get them marked right.  It was a
> bitter pill to swollow but I just let it go at that.  Never gave it
> much thought again until I got on line and found this group.
>
> When I took the SATs I got a 730 in math and a combined score of
> 1425.  Just for fun I took the physics SAT and got a 700 on it.  That
> was over 40 years ago, but I don't think I have lost too many marbles
> since then ;)
>
> Bruce

From: BURT on 8 Mar 2010 14:34
On Mar 7, 6:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 4:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 11:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:690819be-c554-4e0b-9eec-c688f6a03827(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 8:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Mar 4, 10:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On 4 Mar, 15:54, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > On Mar 4, 1:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > This is what fundamentally sets apart things like creationism
> > > >> > > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > science. Whatever other hoops creationism manages to jump
> > > >> > > > > > through, it
> > > >> > > > > > will never jump through the hoop of naturalism, and that is
> > > >> > > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > *fundamentally* sets it apart from science.
>
> > > >> > > > > And also FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes science from religion..
> > > >> > > > > Thanks.
>
> > > >> > > > Agreed, but then religion in general never claimed to be science,
>
> > > >> > > Agreed! And so science is not a religion in the same fashion.
>
> > > >> > No, but neither did one religion ever claim to be the other.
>
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > traditional religion is almost immediately identifiable by its
> > > >> > > > supernaturalism. Creationism is different in that it actually
> > > >> > > > claims
> > > >> > > > to be scientific in some essential respects.
>
> > > >> > > Ah, yes, but as has been demonstrated even to layfolk (Dover v
> > > >> > > Kitsmiller), this is an unsupportable claim.
>
> > > >> > I agree. I'm glad you brought up that case. I just reviewed the
> > > >> > judgment quickly, and apparently the court agrees that the defining
> > > >> > essence of science is naturalism.
>
> > > >> Gee, I didn't read that into the judgment at all.
>
> > > > -----------------
> > > > what is  all that nonstop spamming about
> > > > 'A constant speed of light ' !!!
>
> > > What spamming?
>
> > > > who is the crook behind it ??!!
>
> > > Its called nature- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Light speed flow is a constant in empty space. Aether for light is its
> > fastest flow. Light's clock is therefore the  fastest.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Light and matter are whole time forms. The dark push from light center
> is C slowed by the electric bond energy's field. Light and electric
> matter interact together through their electric energies. Matter's
> electric energy slows light.
>
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The gravity for the time center for light creates a slow c push and
matters electrinc field slow light below this C.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212
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