Science has replaced religion
in [Physics]
|
From: Smiler on 24 Mar 2010 00:34 Ste wrote: > On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: >> Free Lunch wrote: >>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste >>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >>>> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>>>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction in >>>>> religion. >> >>>> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very >>>> honest since probably the 60s. >> >>> Did you want to bother to back that up? >> >> His 'want' and his ability are two different things. > > That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of > ability. They both appear to be lacking. -- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
From: Ste on 24 Mar 2010 04:57 On 23 Mar, 21:43, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > > >On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: > >> Free Lunch wrote: > >> > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> > >> > wrote in alt.atheism: > > >> >> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> >>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction in > >> >>> religion. > > >> >> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very > >> >> honest since probably the 60s. > > >> > Did you want to bother to back that up? > > >> His 'want' and his ability are two different things. > > >That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of > >ability. > > So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim. In truth it was a throwaway comment, for comic effect, given that there hasn't been a great deal of useful theoretical progress for half a century or more. That said, the differences between science and religion have nothing to do with "honesty", because indeed "what works" has nothing to do with total honesty - moreover, even defining these words is incredibly difficult, and they are certainly not objective concepts. And finally, there could be whole reservoirs of scientific knowledge or progress untapped because of scientific dishonesty, but we'll never get to hear about them. And the secret to successful dishonesty is when even the sceptical can look around and be unable to put their finger on any instance of dishonesty - that is always how the powerful successfully manipulate information and ideology. That is logical, and yet you still engage in patting science on the back for its "honesty" and functionalism, which is exactly what religions do and always have done.
From: Smiler on 24 Mar 2010 21:38 Ste wrote: > On 23 Mar, 21:43, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >>> On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: >>>> Free Lunch wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste >>>>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >>>>>> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction >>>>>>> in religion. >> >>>>>> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very >>>>>> honest since probably the 60s. >> >>>>> Did you want to bother to back that up? >> >>>> His 'want' and his ability are two different things. >> >>> That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of >>> ability. >> >> So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim. > > In truth it was a throwaway comment, for comic effect, given that > there hasn't been a great deal of useful theoretical progress for half > a century or more. > > That said, the differences between science and religion have nothing > to do with "honesty", because indeed "what works" has nothing to do > with total honesty - moreover, even defining these words is incredibly > difficult, and they are certainly not objective concepts. > > And finally, there could be whole reservoirs of scientific knowledge > or progress untapped because of scientific dishonesty, but we'll never > get to hear about them. And the secret to successful dishonesty is > when even the sceptical can look around and be unable to put their > finger on any instance of dishonesty - that is always how the powerful > successfully manipulate information and ideology. You throw out an accusation and then poison the well. Where is your evidence that such 'reservoirs of scientific knowledge' exist? > That is logical, Nope. > and > yet you still engage in patting science on the back for its "honesty" > and functionalism, which is exactly what religions do and always have > done. Where is the evidence for the existence of your religion's deity? -- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
From: Xan Du on 24 Mar 2010 21:43 Smiler wrote: > Ste wrote: >> On 23 Mar, 21:43, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> >>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>> >>>> On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: >>>>> Free Lunch wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste >>>>>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>>>> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction >>>>>>>> in religion. >>>>>>> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very >>>>>>> honest since probably the 60s. >>>>>> Did you want to bother to back that up? >>>>> His 'want' and his ability are two different things. >>>> That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of >>>> ability. >>> So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim. >> In truth it was a throwaway comment, for comic effect, given that >> there hasn't been a great deal of useful theoretical progress for half >> a century or more. >> >> That said, the differences between science and religion have nothing >> to do with "honesty", because indeed "what works" has nothing to do >> with total honesty - moreover, even defining these words is incredibly >> difficult, and they are certainly not objective concepts. >> >> And finally, there could be whole reservoirs of scientific knowledge >> or progress untapped because of scientific dishonesty, but we'll never >> get to hear about them. And the secret to successful dishonesty is >> when even the sceptical can look around and be unable to put their >> finger on any instance of dishonesty - that is always how the powerful >> successfully manipulate information and ideology. > > You throw out an accusation and then poison the well. > Where is your evidence that such 'reservoirs of scientific knowledge' exist? > >> That is logical, > > Nope. > >> and >> yet you still engage in patting science on the back for its "honesty" >> and functionalism, which is exactly what religions do and always have >> done. > > Where is the evidence for the existence of your religion's deity? > In the book his diety gave to man through some human intermediary, silly. Don't you read??? -Xan
From: Ste on 25 Mar 2010 01:18
On 25 Mar, 01:38, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: > Ste wrote: > > On 23 Mar, 21:43, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> > >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > >>> On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: > >>>> Free Lunch wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste > >>>>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism: > > >>>>>> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction > >>>>>>> in religion. > > >>>>>> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very > >>>>>> honest since probably the 60s. > > >>>>> Did you want to bother to back that up? > > >>>> His 'want' and his ability are two different things. > > >>> That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of > >>> ability. > > >> So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim. > > > In truth it was a throwaway comment, for comic effect, given that > > there hasn't been a great deal of useful theoretical progress for half > > a century or more. > > > That said, the differences between science and religion have nothing > > to do with "honesty", because indeed "what works" has nothing to do > > with total honesty - moreover, even defining these words is incredibly > > difficult, and they are certainly not objective concepts. > > > And finally, there could be whole reservoirs of scientific knowledge > > or progress untapped because of scientific dishonesty, but we'll never > > get to hear about them. And the secret to successful dishonesty is > > when even the sceptical can look around and be unable to put their > > finger on any instance of dishonesty - that is always how the powerful > > successfully manipulate information and ideology. > > You throw out an accusation and then poison the well. An accusation of what, dishonesty? I merely stated that, if we are to judge the "honesty" of a theory by its functionalism, then the likes of string theory fail miserably. Of course, I personally wouldn't have tried to suggest that somehow science is honest and religion is not, because I know better. But Free Lunch did, and so I'm running with the logic of his argument. > Where is your evidence that such 'reservoirs of scientific knowledge' exist? Lol. I didn't say any existed. I said, if indeed any existed, they could be concealed by a concerted "dishonesty", and there would be no evidence of the concealment for anyone to point to (because, of course, the evidence in question had been successfully concealed). Of course, I've further qualified that by saying that a test of "honesty" is very difficult to define. As I've said previously, these sweeping statements that people make about the "honesty" of science are not factual statements, they are ideological statements from people who pretend not to have an ideology, and moreover there is little actual scientific evidence to support such statements. > > and > > yet you still engage in patting science on the back for its "honesty" > > and functionalism, which is exactly what religions do and always have > > done. > > Where is the evidence for the existence of your religion's deity? In the natural world, of course. I'm a naturalist, I don't hold the "existence of a deity". |