Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Science rocks (and is not a religion).
#21
Umm.  Did anyone read the article below that one??  


Quote:Stop Equating “Science” With Truth


Evolutionary psychology is just the most obvious example of science’s flaws.
By Chanda Prescod-Weinstein

..snip..

It’s easy to end up in an endless loop of using our prodigious scientific skills to carefully debunk the shoddy science that props up this argument. This is important and valuable work, but it’s also worth considering why this loop exists at all.

Science’s greatest myth is that it doesn’t encode bias and is always self-correcting.

In fact, science has often made its living from encoding and justifying bias, and refusing to do anything about the fact that the data says something’s wrong.

"Who are we to say that we have a complete (picture) of the universe??"

..no no, Sparky, that wasn't me.  That was Neil De Grasse Tyson saying it on an episode of that Brian Cox series about the universe that I've just been half watching again.
 Cox doesn't have a problem with talking about multiple universes either.

How odd is it that you and TA seem to have a better grasp of what 'science' is than they do?

Funnier still was near the end when Cox was talking to another physics guru and discussing how in a few more billion years the evidence we now have of the Big Bang will be too dispersed to detect.  

.. sitting down??

 They don't think humans will still be around of course, and were indulging in, dare I say, whimsical theorising?

   They remarked that by then our knowledge of physics would be only passed on to distant descendants as ...something like religion!!  "They'd just have to take our word for it that the evidence was ever there."

None of us believe that it IS a religion, just that it would appear that way. 
 
...  your serve.
Reply
#22
So there was a baby zombie Jeebus?

Yay!

Science rocks.
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#23
I probably should have taken a different approach in my 'argument'.

In retrospect, perhaps something like this:

We whom put our trust in science and its methods need to be extra vigilant, lest religious-type thinking slips in.

Is that any better?
Reply
#24
What are you on Shiner?   No baby Jezuzz to zombify mate,  sorry, thought you knew. Rolleyes

Oh, and yes Stanky that may have ruffled fewer feathers.
Reply
#25
If the evidence to prove physics will eventually disappear, and we need to rely on 'knowledge' to convince skeptics ........

Anyone?
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#26
That feathers can be easily ruffled serves as a warning of sorts.
Hell, Sparks about wanted to punch me out for blaspheming science in the suggestion that it has possible religious tones.
(Iirc, he called me a 'sphincter', which gave me a chuckle. It's a more sciency way of saying asshole. Thanks, mate.)

I've tried to express this a few times here:

Theoretical physicists (quantum and astro) as well as brain-scientists, have way less problem with my flights of fancy than do the more pedantic of the materialists. Read some of it...there's a lot of frisky thinking going on among scientists. And naturally, none are claiming any hunches as fact. Nor would I. I plead not-guilty on that.

Does any have the hunch that the knowledge we're in store for, in the future, will be stranger than we can imagine?
That's how its been going all along. As we learn more, it gets more wondrous and baffling and bigger and older...it's full of surprises.

We should expect to be surprised....get in the mood for it. Why not?
What could be more boring than being sure of how things are?
Especially if we aren't even correct about what has given us this lazy comfort; lounging in the churchy section of the church of science.

I still see many overlaps in science and religion. Especially when the offended science person claims there's no over-lap...because science is true and religion is false. See? that's exactly what an offended religious person would say, except reversed.

Me tossing some thoughts out there brought reactions like "Stone him! Heretic! Sphincter!"...which has a religious flavor.
Scientists frequently have a near religious experience when having their "Aha!" moment.
Zeal is not uncommon, and frequently leads to heated debate between 2 schools of thought on a novel discovery.

It's the zeal that pushes the agenda of the discovery too fast and hard.

In retrospect, our worst blunders of a scientific nature could have been avoided with a more careful and thorough approach.
So how does science address that? It's not the business of science to have an agenda or to wear blinders.

What if we knew about radioactive poisoning prior to dropping bombs? Would we have dropped them?
What if we'd done more diligent science? If not in the name of safety, than in the name of diligence?

Science tends to leap without looking sometimes. It's not science's fault that it's discoveries are often miss-used with disastrous results...that is the flaw of the fiduciary shoving.
yet, the method certainly doesn't suggest that we needn't be so thorough in our quest for knowledge and invention.

Just toss the garbage into orbit; fuck-it.
Bring in the cane toads! I'm tired of waiting for that herpetologist's anal research.
Starlings would go well with this place.
etc.

More scrutiny, not less, is in order. And it's in the hands of the scientists to insist on it.
That shouldn't be in violation of scientific principles...in fact, it would amplify them. More research, not less!

This, one would think, should be the flavor. Learning from mistakes to make fewer.
Reply
#27
(08-14-2017, 07:30 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Evolutionary psychology is just the most obvious example of science’s flaws.

I don't even consider psychology to be a science. It starts out with a Bachelor of Arts, which is where it belongs.

(08-14-2017, 07:30 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  "Who are we to say that we have a complete (picture) of the universe??"

Nobody here's said that, and I've taken pains to say the exact opposite.

(08-14-2017, 07:30 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:   Cox doesn't have a problem with talking about multiple universes either.

How odd is it that you and TA seem to have a better grasp of what 'science' is than they do?

Uh, no. Only works if you think we've been saying something different to what has been typed.

Multiple universes are a joke. So, what if they are? By their very nature, they're outside our universe and we're not exactly going to be conversing with them. There's no evidence at all that they interact with this universe, therefore, like gods which do nothing, they can be ignored.

It gives the pointy-heads something to ponder on, much like Homer & Socrates used to.

(08-14-2017, 07:30 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  They remarked that by then our knowledge of physics would be only passed on to distant descendants as ...something like religion!!  "They'd just have to take our word for it that the evidence was ever there."

None of us believe that it IS a religion, just that it would appear that way. 
 
...  your serve.

Cox & Tyson might be clever, but if that's how the statement was presented, then it's dumb, because that's not how evidence or physics work.

The trouble with celebrity scientists is that they like being celebrities and it sticks. They say obscure things to appeal to their masses.

It's a reason why it would be interesting to see how Einstein would be treated if he were alive now. I reckon his voice alone would have made him an object of ridicule rather than reverence. Check out a YouTube of him speaking - he didn't fit the mould for crazy scientist and sounded like Lisa Simpson on valium.

(08-14-2017, 08:45 AM)stanky Wrote:  In retrospect, perhaps something like this:

We whom put our trust in science and its methods need to be extra vigilant, lest religious-type thinking slips in.

Is that any better?

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that. If that's where you are, good.

(08-14-2017, 09:16 AM)Shiner Wrote:  If the evidence to prove physics will eventually disappear, and we need to rely on 'knowledge' to convince skeptics ........

Anyone?

It's bullshit. The evidence of physics won't disappear at all. The evidence of the physics of the Big Bang might, but so what? If the evidence is recorded properly, it will still exist. All other physics will still be around, keeping gravity going and the trains running on time.

(08-14-2017, 11:44 AM)stanky Wrote:  ... lounging in the churchy section of the church of science...

Didn't last long.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#28
Quote:They remarked that by then our knowledge of physics would be only passed on to distant descendants as ...something like religion!!  "They'd just have to take our word for it that the evidence was ever there."


None of us believe that it IS a religion, just that it would appear that way. 
 
...  your serve.

TA replied:

Cox & Tyson might be clever, but if that's how the statement was presented, then it's dumb, because that's not how evidence or physics work.

The trouble with celebrity scientists is that they like being celebrities and it sticks. They say obscure things to appeal to their masses.

They weren't saying that's how it works TA.  They were discussing how our current knowledge of science would be viewed by people in a few billion years when the evidence our science is based upon is no longer detectable.

Would they take our word that the evidence was around?  If so then they would be placing 'faith' in our scientists to have been right.  They would have to take the findings of the Big Bang residual background reading "on faith".

That is not saying that science IS religion... it's pointing out that the FAITH in it's truth would by then be all that is left.  The evidence is gone.

And fer chrissakes for the 17th time, no that does NOT equate science with religion.   Only that the PERCEPTION of science in an impossibly distant future would then be no more tangibly provable than religion is now.  

If you are too hard headed to see the difference then this apples and oranges argument should be good for another year or two.
Reply
#29
(08-14-2017, 02:01 PM)The Atheist Wrote:  
(08-14-2017, 09:16 AM)Shiner Wrote:  If the evidence to prove physics will eventually disappear, and we need to rely on 'knowledge' to convince skeptics ........

Anyone?

It's bullshit. The evidence of physics won't disappear at all. The evidence of the physics of the Big Bang might, but so what? If the evidence is recorded properly, it will still exist. All other physics will still be around, keeping gravity going and the trains running on time.


Yes, I got that.  I was simply using the 'logic' to show stupid it is. 

(The evidence for Jesus has disintegrated, but trust me, he was real)
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#30
Di says: ""Who are we to say that we have a complete (picture) of the universe??" "

You imply that I said the opposite of the above or that I at least implied it. Please produce the evidence or get the fuck off putting words in my mouth.

Thanks.

As for the rest of the nonsense, if spouted by Tyson or not, has been dealt with very well by TA. Thanks mate.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)