Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in

by EntirelyPossible 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I don't understand what you mean here. You agreed (I think) that people face ridicule for not believing mainstream science.

  I did not :)

  I specifically said (or meant to say) that people face ridicule when they propose ideas that go against mainstream science with no evidence or proof, or with a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence or predictive powers.

  In that way, when their science holds, the new thing is accepted despite the controversy.

  If their science holds and is testable, fasifiable, predictive and reliably provable by others, there IS no controversy.

  Their questions, doubts, etc, would always be encouraged. But this is not always the case, and the person criticizing doesn't always know anything more than the person questioning.

  True. For instance, recently evidence that suggest the moon (of earth) was volcanically active recently (in geological timescales) was discovered on the FAR side of the moon. Bill Nye was on Fox News talking about it and one of the anchors suggested that might be related to global warming. Bill very politely told him the two were unrelated but he seemed unconvinced. He knew so little he wasn't even wrong (the Fox guy). He might as well have suggested that goldfish size in fishbowls affect the price of barrels of oil.

  Just because you put forward an idea doesn't mean it is worthy of a response. It IS, however, sometimes worthy of ridicule. Bill Nye is a better man than I (but not a better poet, he doesn't even know it).

  Questions ARE encourage. Intelligent questions. There IS such a thing as a dumb question :)

  The kids are dragging me to toys R us to spend their money.

  Better you than me, my friend. I am sitting in a bar in Austin drinking beer :)
• 

  bohm

  Tec:

  Yah i regret the "bullshit" comment, i am a bit tired and i wanted to edit the post...but i figured you might allready have seen it and it would suck even more if i did that. it was not thought through. i dont think you are bullshitting me. i need to take a break from this place :-). Sorry, really.

  Anyway, returning to the example. Can we agree you do not have an example which will fit my description? (i wrote physics because i wanted to exclude subjects like economy, where i think one can find examples of what you write about).
• 

  Giordano

  Science functions in an entirely different way then religion. Religion is in the business of providing their believers with answers. Religion doesn't teach you how to think it teaches you what to think, as has been noted elsewhere. Because of this off center ability to reason and understand no one religion has succeeded in becoming the One religion. But in many respects science has succeeded in become the One science. Which leaves science to be the most durable and nondivisisive way of thinking about the heavens and the earth and humankind. Science now transcends all cultural, national and political boundaries. If science at times is seen to be the enemy of religion, it isn't. It is simply the enemy of ignorance. Unfortunately every religion promotes ignorance in one form or another. For science to function in a meaningful way it must have proof that something, some process, some form of energy exists which in turn provides the next bridge to the next discovery.

  Whether one accepts evolution or not is not as important as accepting that our knowledge of the heavens and the earth is evolving. Here's some good advice ......put down that bible, Koran etc .......and pick up a science book.
• 

  unshackled

  PSac: In His view the evidence for evolution proves there is no God.

  This doesn't directly address the OP, but wanted to address PSac's comment about Dawkins above...

  I'm not aware of any of record of Dawkins stating "evolution proves there is no God". If you haven't read both The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth, I suggest you do to better understand what Dawkins' view is.

  In The Greatest Show on Earth he regularly points out that the evidence for evolution disproves the 10,000-year-old earth/creation story AND/OR Intelligent Design.

  Early in The God Delusion he makes a point of defining the concept of God that he is addressing. It is a personal God, a creator of the universe that interferes with the affairs of man, which for most would be the God of the Old Testament. Not a pantheistic god, or Spinoza's and Einstein's god.

  I strongly doubt Dawkins' "war" on religion is directed at the PSacs and Tammys of this world. (At least I hope not, I like them.) In his books he rails against the established institutions and organizations of religion that continue to press to have the creation account taught in schools as a scientific alternative to evolution. At the end of Greatest Show on Earth he references a 2008 poll, which revealed 44% of Americans believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old and all life was created as is within that time frame. It is slightly better in the UK just under the 40% mark. Staggering really.
• 

  Twitch

  Well said, Giordano.

  At the end of Greatest Show on Earth he references a 2008 poll, which revealed 44% of Americans believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old and all life was created as is within that time frame. It is slightly better in the UK just under the 40% mark. Staggering really.

  Praise Jesus!
• 

  tec

  Yah i regret the "bullshit" comment, i am a bit tired and i wanted to edit the post...but i figured you might allready have seen it and it would suck even more if i did that. it was not thought through. i dont think you are bullshitting me. i need to take a break from this place :-). Sorry, really.

  Apology completely accepted, and thank you for that :)

  I understand speaking from weariness, and later regretting it (I've done it myself), so no worries.

  Anyway, returning to the example. Can we agree you do not have an example which will fit my description? (i wrote physics because i wanted to exclude subjects like economy, where i think one can find examples of what you write about).

  We are agreed. I don't know anything about physics. Or chemistry. Or any of this dark matter stuff that EP was talking about. Makes it hard for me to respond sometimes to things like that because I don't speak that language, and often misconstrue the point someone is trying to make.

  My statement is more general, and deals more with human nature and failings. I do not dislike or invalidate science itself. Only the people who treat it like a religion - hence causing a similarity between science and religion. That is all. Science itself is a means in which we learn about our universe. The conclusions change and/or grow as new things are discovered, and new technology allows us to learn more. Sometimes previous conclusions are also discovered to be wrong, due to new evidence.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  tec

  BTW, Netpune was the first planet predicted to exist before it was directly observed. It was predicted to exist based on the orbits of other planets and the maths, a good example of a hypothesis based on observation and evidence with a predictive power that was correct :)

  That's cool!

  It's a science, but there is a social evolution aspect to it since, after all, people are involved.

  I agree, which is probably why I can see similarities. Because people are involved.

  BTW, sometimes we know something we thought was right is wrong, without knowing what the right thing is until someone comes up with it. Sometimes there may be competing ideas. Eventually, getting more evidence will sort them out. Sometimes things we thought

  were wrong turn our to be right, or at least partially right (see Lamarck and gene expression as an example).

  Agreed as well. And since we're on the topic of similarities between science and religion, this is true for religion (though I would rather say faith) as well. Sometimes you don't have to know what is right, to recognize when something is wrong.

  Peace

  Tammy
• 

  tec

  Even if your description (above) was typically what takes place, is that not more desirable than giving credibility to any and every "whacky" idea that people dream up?

  Sure it is. But I'm not sure what that has to do with what I see as a similarity between religion and science?

  The scientific community can still be divided on some issues but nowadays that tends to accelerate the validation process.

  I know the scientific community can be divided, and often is when new evidence for something comes into play. Even if they're all in agreement, new evidence can change their unified conclusion. Something (understood as) untrue now can later be true. Something true now can later be untrue.

  That is the similarity with 'new light'. New understanding that adds to or replaces old understanding, even if old understanding was once accepted as true.

  The only other similarities are with the people who treat science like a religion, and refuse to tolerate anyone who disagrees with any given finding.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  bohm

  My statement is more general, and deals more with human nature and failings. I do not dislike or invalidate science itself. Only the people who treat it like a religion - hence causing a similarity between science and religion. That is all.

  But that is what i dont get: is the best way to express that you dislike people who treat science to religion by saying science is the same as religion (as in new light)?
• 

  tec

  I did not :)

  I specifically said (or meant to say) that people face ridicule when they propose ideas that go against mainstream science with no evidence or proof, or with a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence or predictive powers.

  Gotcha! What about people who are ridiculed simply for not agreeing with mainstream science, even though they don't know what might be true instead?

  If their science holds and is testable, fasifiable, predictive and reliably provable by others, there IS no controversy.

  My mistake. I should have said 'previous' controversy.

  True.

  Just leaving your agreement with me there for posterity ;)

  Questions ARE encourage. Intelligent questions. There IS such a thing as a dumb question :)

  I disagree with that though. Its only dumb to the person who knows better.

  Better you than me, my friend. I am sitting in a bar in Austin drinking beer :)

  Two bionicles and one Mortal Kombat (with Kratos character) later...

  Peace,

  Tammy