Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Desiderya]

Well, I wonder how you can give that probability assessment. Have you checked an infinite number of worlds by - as we now know - radioactive decay of Uranium to lead on said infinite numbers of worlds, where one half of them was 5000y old and the other 4.54B years to be able to calculate the probabilities?

Likelihood might've been a better word. But why is it higher? Because if the Earth is 5000 years old all the methods used to determine the Earth age have to be faulty, and if they're faulty, even more has to be faulty, too. Since this does not seem to be the case (Just imagine what errors of this scale would mean to any application that just utilizes radioactive decay) it's the magic oddity that I've described earlier. There's an effect that just distorts these measurements that contradict the teaching of creation/genesis. And just that. Once applied in the here and now to make your hardware work on more than just ants it's completely legit.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Since when does 'does not seem to be the case' get treated as 'is not the case'? Yah, the young world creationist need to assume that God created a world in a way that fools human reason, but really, you can't rule that out by saying 'but things work now'.

I rather think that it's unreasonable that a reasonable God created a world like that. It'd also be rather cruel. As Christianity teaches that God is reasonable (logos rather than a-logikos) and loving rather then neeedlessly cruel the position that young earth creationists hold seems self-defeating.

Much better argument against them than just stamping your feet and saying "but that would mean that in regards to the past all our physics wouldn't work", because the YEC would just nod and say: "Exactly."

[Lyn Farel]

As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old.

Well, I wonder how you can give that probability assessment. Have you checked an infinite number of worlds by - as we now know - radioactive decay of Uranium to lead on said infinite numbers of worlds, where one half of them was 5000y old and the other 4.54B years to be able to calculate the probabilities?

What you really say here is that you trust science infinitely more than a counting of days in the bible in regard to the age of Earth. And while I think that is reasonable, I don't see how it is the option we need to embrace by necessity.

No, what I really say here is that it is reasonable to me. Likelihood was probably a better term indeed.

I never said anywhere that it has to be embraced by necessity. And if you don't embrace it, what then ?

Honestly I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by that remark, or what is your point, as you probably perfectly understood what I meant in the first place. I couldn't care less if God is reasonable or not in YEC world. I am not one, and am also not trying to tell them that they are wrong. I will leave it to you since you seem to know how to handle them.

Because if we start to put in question scientific conclusions on the simple assumption that they might be wrong, or based on subjective axioms, then what ?


Edit :

Also, I never said a scientist elite is 'controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past'.

You wrote above :

Honestly, nowadays those that follow Scientism are a small elite that shares in priviledged access to knowledge and tries to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. They are pretty much like the early european Christianity or near easter Islam after having secured dominance in their regions.

As to the followers of Scientism: I didn't say they are fanatics. I say they are trying to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. One doesn't need to be a fanatic for that, one simply needs to want to be in charge for whatever reason (and that includes superficially benign reasons).

So maybe I understood something wrong, I don't know. Apologies for that if that's the case.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Don't think that likelyhood captures it either, after all a YEC says that God arranged everything so that it seems to science as it does. You can't really assess such a view by assigning likelyhood or probability, as it's making the claim that there should be no change in the empirical data at all.

Because if we start to put in question scientific conclusions on the simple assumption that they might be wrong, or based on subjective axioms, then what ?

Just saying, humankind lived not so badly without science for the vast majority of it's history and all of it's pre-history. I think it should be allowed to fundamentally question science, but then it's quite ingrained into many people nowadays that "if we start to put in question scientific conclusions... then what ?". Well, what then? The world certainly won't perish and the sun will come up regardless of whether we think the earth turns or the sun travels around earth.

Not accepting Science as the best way of determining what is true isn't the end of the world. And if your toilet is stuck what you need isn't a scientist, but a plumber. We depend far more on non-scientific professions than on science to makeour living. Science in a way is a luxury. (One that I'm quite in favour of.)

[Vikarion]

I don't want to get modded, but it seems to me that this is a bit silly. All of this is stupid, if intelligently so. At least, from my perspective.

I don't mean that we should invade anyone who doesn't share our beliefs. Practically, we don't have the money. Ideologically, invasion fails to transmit memes. I should have thought that this were obvious. But then, given what has happened, perhaps not.

But why should I live in a country where what I think is criminalized if I speak it? Therefore, I am anti-blasphemy laws. And, moreover, I do not wish to die or to be imprisoned because of what I think - therefore, why give to, and thus strengthen, those with anti-blasphemy laws?

To me, human dignity is an illusion. I have worked in a lot of blue-collar occupations. It seems to me that "human dignity" does not exist, save as something for the middle and upper classes to give as a reason to penalize disagreement with their beliefs. I may be biased, but, even as a member of those classes now, their precious idealization of human ideologies seems, frankly, without any real foundation.

Here is reality: Feed. Fuck. Survive. We grew out of that. Ideas brought us out of that. But why grant special status to any of them?

Well. I can't speak except as a former fundamentalist Christian and a blue collar - into middle class - worker. It seems to me that that is an excellent qualification for speaking to the subject, but I'm sure I can be found wrong in some detail. Yet, as the above, I can say that what I really wanted was to know what was true, and what worked.

You see, even as a conservative fundamentalist Christian in the U.S., I wanted to know what was true. What was real. By investigating reality, I became an atheist. I do not resent this, even if it is harder, because I want to know what is closer to reality. As such, I am against anything which would have kept me from knowing the truth.

And, more so, I do think that there is a truth. Either we are descended from ape-precursors, or we aren't. Either the earth is 6-8,000 years old, or it isn't. In either case, what we can expect is different. I want to be ready for what will happen, to be able to be ready for the next virus, the next volcanic explosion, the next earthquake.

As such, what is true is that which corresponds to reality, to what has happened and will happen. And, in deference to that, what should anyone care about "special" or "fundamental" beliefs? What matters is what will benefit or destroy us, and that is the province of the study of reality, or, if you will, science. What works.

I oppose limiting free speech not because I am without regard to the bad things people might say, but because I think there must always be a forum for even just one person to speak what corresponds to reality.

[Desiderya]

Since when does 'does not seem to be the case' get treated as 'is not the case'? Yah, the young world creationist need to assume that God created a world in a way that fools human reason, but really, you can't rule that out by saying 'but things work now'.

I rather think that it's unreasonable that a reasonable God created a world like that. It'd also be rather cruel. As Christianity teaches that God is reasonable (logos rather than a-logikos) and loving rather then neeedlessly cruel the position that young earth creationists hold seems self-defeating.

Much better argument against them than just stamping your feet and saying "but that would mean that in regards to the past all our physics wouldn't work", because the YEC would just nod and say: "Exactly."

Essentially showcasing that you can't argue against dogmatic beliefs, which is a core criticism of organized or instituted religion - the teaching said so. If those teachings would change this would not be a problem, but it's been some time since a prophet made a showing to deliver the word of god, and even interpretation as done by theologians is moving very, very slowly. Additionally, you can not prove or disprove these dogmatic foundations.
Regarding these arguments pro and con, the solution that requires the least assumptions should always be the favorite one. Additionally, trying to explain something simple with something even more compex is problematic, too.
Some people think they can use the same dogmatic approach to science, but they are not better either, and usually not scientists. I wouldn't trust someone who boasts that he has the answer to everything. The way the science community (orange has highlighted legitimate criticism on this) works, however, is on entirely different basises. You publish your information in a way that makes it possible for everyone to try and reproduce your findings. If they can't, they're going to call you out on it. Now, it's not simple to just heat up your 20km particle accelerator in the backyard to doublecheck some CERN experiments, but we're not talking about this, we're talking about the most fundamental principles.


Also we're not living badly today. Why improve things for tomorrow when we kinda get along, eh?

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Essentially showcasing that you can't argue against dogmatic beliefs, which is a core criticism of organized or instituted religion - the teaching said so.

No,n it shows that you can't argue against someone pulling something into questiontion by citing what he pulls into question. Of course I can argue with them in a lot of differing ways.

The way the science community (orange has highlighted legitimate criticism on this) works, however, is on entirely different basises. You publish your information in a way that makes it possible for everyone to try and reproduce your findings. If they can't, they're going to call you out on it.

As Orange already pointed out, this everyone you speak about is a limited number of people who're experts on this, usually confined to a pretty close field. The vast majority of humankind has neither the resources (buying access to scientific literature is quite expensive, nor the education or access to said eeducation necessary to do so...
 

Also we're not living badly today. Why improve things for tomorrow when we kinda get along, eh?

Living conditions didn't necessarily improve through applied science. Applied science is one of the main reasons for the pollution of our environment, just to pick one thing out. On the other hand living conditions are hard to measure at all. Of course if you define living quality as 'benefitting from the fruits of modern science' then you can do easily show that science improved living quality...
But I think that the advancements of the craft of shoemaking are quite real even before there entered science into that. I also think it improved life. Science isn't the only thing that can miraculously improve our life. Actually, what improves our lives is not science in itself, but how we choose to apply the results of science.

@Vikarion: Science works. That doesn't mean that it corresponds to reality though in any other way than that it works in the way it does. Actually, science is oftentimes counterfactual. E.g. Niels Bohr did know exactly that his model of the atom didn't correspond to reality even before he published it. He did so because it worked anyway to explain the energy of electrons circling the atomic core (which they aren't really circling, as I'm sure you know). So, science oftentimes does not correspond to reality and quite often does so in many ways knowingly.

[Publius Valerius]

@Vikarion: Science works. That doesn't mean that it corresponds to reality though in any other way than that it works in the way it does. Actually, science is oftentimes counterfactual. E.g. Niels Bohr did know exactly that his model of the atom didn't correspond to reality even before he published it. He did so because it worked anyway to explain the energy of electrons circling the atomic core. So, science oftentimes does not correspond to reality and quite often does so in many ways knowingly.

Sorry to call you out again. But this is not true. Maybe you can find a better example.... By the way uncertainty doesnt falsfy science... as Mia showed in here book about the new expermentalism. So If someone can mathematical inductive (which is deductive) prove his point, then it is also valid. See modern theoretical physics, neue politisch ökonomie, and many others etc...

Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?

Didn't say there should. If you read what I wrote I said that this isn't what modern 'blasphemy laws' are about.

So what they are about? Please tell me. And dont come me, with they wouldnt be protected without one.... the normal Strafgesetzbuch does still apply to and for every person. So again: What they are about?

[Elmund Egivand]

Don't think that likelyhood captures it either, after all a YEC says that God arranged everything so that it seems to science as it does. You can't really assess such a view by assigning likelyhood or probability, as it's making the claim that there should be no change in the empirical data at all.

Because if we start to put in question scientific conclusions on the simple assumption that they might be wrong, or based on subjective axioms, then what ?

Just saying, humankind lived not so badly without science for the vast majority of it's history and all of it's pre-history. I think it should be allowed to fundamentally question science, but then it's quite ingrained into many people nowadays that "if we start to put in question scientific conclusions... then what ?". Well, what then? The world certainly won't perish and the sun will come up regardless of whether we think the earth turns or the sun travels around earth.

Not accepting Science as the best way of determining what is true isn't the end of the world. And if your toilet is stuck what you need isn't a scientist, but a plumber. We depend far more on non-scientific professions than on science to makeour living. Science in a way is a luxury. (One that I'm quite in favour of.)

Having being a science student, here's what I will say about the reluctance to question science: Are you bloody serious?

Listen, science is a tool to help us understand the universe. It is a human construct, filled with human flaws. All knowledge drawn from science is true until proven otherwise. And how are you going to prove that a scientific fact is false or flawed if you do not question it? Doubt and skepticism is important for science, it helps science grow. It helps us, scientists and layperson and otherwise, to identify problems in our hypothesis and our theories and refine our experiments, come up with new, hopefully more accurate hypothesis, which will in turn improve our understanding of the universe.

This is what science is about! It's not a religion, it's a tool for understanding and enlightenment, and like all tools, it is not perfect and can always be improved!

[orange]

I think there in lies a core component of the issue.  When a person questions a scientific conclusion, many see it as questioning the scientific process itself, not just the conclusion.

Not accepting Science as the best way of determining what is true isn't the end of the world. And if your toilet is stuck what you need isn't a scientist, but a plumber. We depend far more on non-scientific professions than on science to makeour living. Science in a way is a luxury. (One that I'm quite in favour of.)

Except the successful plumber, mechanic, builder, and farmer tend to use the scientific process in many ways.  A plumber uses tools, improved by physics and chemistry.  A mechanic establishes a hypothesis, attempts to fix it, and if it does not work, attempts a new hypothesis and fix (the scientific process).  A builder does their work based on either designs by engineers and architects or the success and failures of past builders (each construction an experiment).  A farmer applies many of these same techniques.

The very things that allow civilization, even ancient civilization to exist, represent the unintentional application the basic scientific process.  Modern civilization fails to exists without the focused application of the scientific processes.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

If  a plumber, a mechanic anda builder as well as a farmer are scientists, then suddenly everything is science. I mean, really... <,< If it's successful, it's science? There's a bit more to science then trial and error until it works.

Also, yes, the scientist may question a scientific conclusion, but that's not questioning science or the scientific process in itself. Scientists are good sceptics, unless it's about fundamentally questioning what they're doing.

[Desiderya]

Applied science has made our existance possible. While a lot of new problems have arisen and undoubtedly will arise in the years to come the benefits are so tremendous in every single aspect of life that I'm pretty stunned how you can discard it. Furthermore, Rapture aside, it is the only tool available that has the potential to solve issues such as feeding a massive population, providing clean energy for future generations and continue to extend our lifespans in the eternal struggle against disease. You would've gotten cancer 2000 years ago, too, if you'd  been lucky enough to make it to 40.

I mean, brave new world and all, every tool can and will be abused, but sheesh.


Also everyone can be a scientist, obviously, and prior to modern universities we had them, too, like that dude who spottedthat flint can spark similar to that burning stuff, and decided to keep trying ( bet he tried different rocks, too).

Your plumber utilizes science. The simple metal tube where water runs through ain't so funny. Ask people who've lived in the 50/60s about freezing and bursting pipes. Or rust in the plumbing.

The Bohr example is perfect, because it shows the process. It refined the Rutherford model in some key points while being unable to solve the problem that the electron should tumble into the core, given classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics managed to mathematically solve this ( in such a theoretical way that your memory sticks or flash cards work ). There are still a lot of unknowns, classical and qm aren't linked yet, but the process refines it. And explains/models successfully so much that it seems to be much closer to our reality than other theories/beliefs that do explain nothing else.

[Nmaro Makari]

In the spirit of this thread, I think I'm going to start calling my plumber "Pipe Sorcerer".

Seems to convey the appropriate mystique.

[Lyn Farel]

Don't think that likelyhood captures it either, after all a YEC says that God arranged everything so that it seems to science as it does. You can't really assess such a view by assigning likelyhood or probability, as it's making the claim that there should be no change in the empirical data at all.

Because if we start to put in question scientific conclusions on the simple assumption that they might be wrong, or based on subjective axioms, then what ?

Just saying, humankind lived not so badly without science for the vast majority of it's history and all of it's pre-history. I think it should be allowed to fundamentally question science, but then it's quite ingrained into many people nowadays that "if we start to put in question scientific conclusions... then what ?". Well, what then? The world certainly won't perish and the sun will come up regardless of whether we think the earth turns or the sun travels around earth.

Not accepting Science as the best way of determining what is true isn't the end of the world. And if your toilet is stuck what you need isn't a scientist, but a plumber. We depend far more on non-scientific professions than on science to makeour living. Science in a way is a luxury. (One that I'm quite in favour of.)

Oh for the... That's not what I said at all again. I guess I suck at explaining what I want to explain.

Don't bother.

Not even sure where and when YEC came into the discussion and what for...

So yes, it's good to be aware that science is not the absolute Truth. So yeah, what then again ? I'm aware of it. I'm still trying to figure out what is the point in pointing that out.

Are you telling me that you just dismiss science conclusions just because well, it's probably not the absolute truth, or doesn't perfectly match it after all ? And if not, what is your damn point ?

[PracticalTechnicality]

In the spirit of this thread, I think I'm going to start calling my plumber "Pipe Sorcerer".

Seems to convey the appropriate mystique.

Having been around Deadrow too long, Pipe Sorcerer doesn't convey the image of an individual given to the laudable trade that is ensuring effective water supply in the household.  Though occasionally the individual bestowed with such a title may be dressed as a plumber, pursuing an equally virtuous, but unrelated, discipline of vital import to society.