Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • designs

    Christianity has been exposed, get over it.

  • bohm

    some people are dishonest. when they try to do science in a dishonest fashion, they eventually get checked up against the real world and are laughed at and has their career ruined (last thing i heard attempts were being made at stripping dr. Schon of his title). When they go into religion, well, anything goes and any random asshole is free to spout off how everyone goes to hell.

    I am more comfortable by the first system as a way to derive a picture of the world. perrys overall interlectual integrety moves him towards the second. trying to equate the two is just stupid.

  • designs


    Exactly, Newton's ideas of gravity were scrutinized by astronomers in the 1700s and later by physicists like Einstein in the 1900s with each generation of scientists adding and refining to the scientific process. Progress and Freedom rather than being stuck with a document like the Bible.

  • Perry
    I am more comfortable by the first system as a way to derive a picture of the world.

    And this is what you will filter for. The reality is that real science is just fine. The problem is that much of what gets gets passed off as science is just untested crap. Like this:

    Piltdown Man

    The Piltdown Man is a famous hoax in which pieces of a skull and jawbone found in 1912 were believed to be the fossilized remains of an early form of human being. The specimen was officially given a latin name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni) after its collector Charles Dawson. In 1953 it was exposed to be a fraud consisting of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a fully developed adult man.

    The Piltdown hoax is probably the most famous hoax in history. It has become so well known for two reasons: the attention it brought to the issue of evolution, and the length of time (over 40 years) that it took for anyone to discover it was a fraud.

    How many other Scientific "facts" will be exposed as a fraud in the future? The reality is that many are already exposed but political and monetary considerations prevent a full expose'. Thank God for the Internet. It help me to determine that the WT wasn't the sole guardian of truth, and that the same can be said for "science, falsely so-called".

    One more important feature about Piltdown Man for American readers. If you look closely at the teeth, you'll see a family trait that is regularly displayed in the television commercial for PCMATIC.COM. The woman in that commercial has this same gene that makes one tooth sparkle. Somehow this trait must have survived because it was beneficial. Amazing.

  • designs


    Your statement 'The problem is that much of what gets passed off as science is untested crap' shows your ignorance of theory, hypothesis, and testing.

    Keep working on the Book of Joshua, maybe you'll be the one to get the Sun to stand still.

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    I think if the point was being made by a non-theist, this thread could have become a good discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the current system of research and publication. A basic research methods class will teach you that the system is flawed and that hoaxes get through occasionally and crap gets through regularly, but as has been mentioned the system of scientific inquiry is in place to KEEP QUESTIONING (unlike religious dogma) and eventually the crap gets exposed or simply left by the wayside kind of like Borg "old light."

    Have there been any cases of science fraud that have killed as many people as, for example, the Watchtower blood doctrine has?

  • bohm

    wait a minute, all of a sudden perry believe carbon 14 dating after all? or did i get it wrong, and we just accept carbon 14 when it is suitable? Example of why perry is a hypocrit: Reject claims when they are contradicted by evidence (as in the case by piltdown which, as i recall, was questioned many years before being exposed as a fraud), defend other claims (noahs ark, adam and eve, talking animals, rainbow-shitting unicorns, gnomes or whatever folkstorie perry happends to believe in at the moment)

  • cantleave

    Brians of a Rocking horse!!!! Perry you take ignorance to new heights, thanks for reminding me of what I left behind!

  • Terry

    Science can ONLY deal with the impact of perceived phenomen on the senses.

    Science can ONLY measure, test and hypothesize based on the physical.

    Science can ONLY report results.

    The fraudulent paper (cited above) deals with this limitation and criticizes it. The criticism is valid in and of itself. What followed could only

    be characterized as opinion. When any scientist or pseudo-scientist talks ABOUT science (rather than talking science) the one-step-removed stance

    is META-language. Unless the reader in a peer review catches that step as it happens and throws up the RED FLAG, fundamental error follows.

    Why? GIGO. Garbage in=Garbage out.

    Not that criticism is unwarranted. Testing and Falsifiability is the lynchpin of Science.

    Now here is what I'm wondering. Does Perry know what he has introduced here is the very essence of how Science works?

    Data is only data until it is tested. Once tested it is exposed for what it IS rather than what was hypothesized.

    Statements in Science are descriptions and not etched-in-stone commandments and this is the WHOLE POINT.

    Our rational and logical structures are only as good and productive as we vigilantly maintain them to be.

    Science is not Automatic.

    Religion, on the other hand, tests nothing and is "received" only to remain stagnant.

    And, not only stagnant, but impervious to testing, criticism and change.

    Truth corresponds to reality without contradiction.

    Religion confuses metaphysics with physics and metareality with reality.

    I think Perry wants us to read his post and slap our foreheads and say, "Wow, Science ain't no good in detecting God, heaven and spirit."

    Those three fundamentals ARE METAPHYSICS. So science, indeed, "aint no good" at all with it! Our mental constructs aren't a reality. They are our internal mixture of what is real and what is imagined.

    Lose track of which is which at your own peril!

  • OnTheWayOut

    Posting actual or alledged hoaxes wouldn't be a fair contest between Science and Religion. The known hoaxes in the name of Christianity alone would far outweigh those of science. Let alone the hoaxes that are known only to open minded people (the not-Perry people).

Share this