# Human Race and Earth Endangered by New Strain



## KmH (May 21, 2015)

*Fact-Resistant Humans*


----------



## Gary A. (May 21, 2015)

Yes, and a particular resilient and active reservoir of this strain has settled in our nation's capital.


----------



## SCraig (May 21, 2015)

There are facts and then there are FACTS.  While many so-called "Scientists" tend to treat them as the same, and would have one believe that only their facts are the true FACTS, they are not the same.


----------



## baturn (May 21, 2015)

And that's a fact!


----------



## table1349 (May 21, 2015)

Heck, Here I thought this was some amazing newly discovered thing only to find out it's just another article talking about REPUBLICANS!!!


----------



## tecboy (May 21, 2015)

Huh?  Too much facts or too little facts!   That is too dangerous.


----------



## unpopular (May 21, 2015)

there is no truth, only assumptions.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 21, 2015)

There is a common  antidote to too many facts and that is belief.
It has been demonstrated (the secondary refs are below) that people with very strong beliefs are only hardened in their beliefs by facts that would seem to disprove them.

How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0


----------



## The_Traveler (May 21, 2015)

SCraig said:


> There are facts and then there are FACTS.  While many so-called "Scientists" tend to treat them as the same, and would have one believe that only their facts are the true FACTS, they are not the same.





unpopular said:


> there is no truth, only assumptions.



Both easy to say to sound wise but just vague generalities and not specifically true.


----------



## snowbear (May 21, 2015)

IBL (in case nobody sees the article is satire)


----------



## BananaRepublic (May 21, 2015)

There are none knowns, none unknowns and unknown unknowns.


----------



## unpopular (May 21, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > There are facts and then there are FACTS.  While many so-called "Scientists" tend to treat them as the same, and would have one believe that only their facts are the true FACTS, they are not the same.
> ...



When our observations are all indirect (and yes, I mean *all* observations), I can't see how you can say that anything is absolute.


----------



## weepete (May 21, 2015)

I blame too many arts graduates in the media.


----------



## SCraig (May 21, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Both easy to say to sound wise but just vague generalities and not specifically true.


Show me a die-hard global warming fanatic and I'll show you someone who is absolutely convinced of the validity of their "Facts".  Show me a die-hard anti-global warming fanatic and I'll show you someone who is also absolutely convinced of the validity of their "Facts".  Both are equally convinced they are right, and that their facts are "Facts".  Logic, however, obviously dictates that one or the other is wrong.

Neither a vague generality nor specifically untrue.

Unlike some around here I don't say things simply to try and sound wise.  To the contrary I have very little to say around here at all anymore since there are so many who are more than willing to flaunt their own sense of superiority.


----------



## table1349 (May 21, 2015)

Fact......Some day you will DIE.  There are no other Facts.


----------



## snowbear (May 21, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Fact......Some day you will DIE.  There are no other Facts.



Fact - not only will you die some day, but you will grow older until you do.


----------



## tirediron (May 21, 2015)

baturn said:


> And that's a fact!


Jack!


----------



## table1349 (May 21, 2015)

tirediron said:


> baturn said:
> 
> 
> > And that's a fact!
> ...


Who's Jack and when did he get in on the conversation?


----------



## The_Traveler (May 21, 2015)

unpopular said:


> [
> 
> When our observations are all indirect (and yes, I mean *all* observations), I can't see how you can say that anything is absolute.



Let's start with gravity.
I will drop an anvil on your foot and you can confirm the fact that it exists.


----------



## table1349 (May 21, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Drop it 25,000 miles above the earth and see what happens.


----------



## snowbear (May 21, 2015)

There's no such things as gravity - the earth just sucks.


----------



## Derrel (May 21, 2015)

Word on the street is this new strain started in chickens, then jumped to the human population when an anti-vaxxer who worships at the Church of Jenny McCarthy got married to a Fox News and Bill O'Reilly addict. The combination of their DNA meant that reason, logical thinking, and the ideas of science were all deemed heretical.


----------



## unpopular (May 21, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



it would appear that the kinetic energy transferred into my nervous system, that energy is in turn converted to electrical and chemical energy, which is interpreted by the brain as "pain".

Did I perceive gravity itself - or the biochemical manifestation of gravity?

Now, you're looking at my broken foot. Electromagnetic energy is converted to chemical energy which is interpreted by the brain through memory as a broken foot.

Did you perceive my broken foot - or the electromagnetic energy that represents my broken foot?

We live outside the universe. We always will.


----------



## pgriz (May 21, 2015)

Facts are meaningless data points until they are put in the right context. And that's where the games begin - the context can be interpreted many different ways.  The other side of the coin is the "unknown" - the stuff that we might know some day, or perhaps we'll never know because we don't have the intellectual capacity to understand it.  To have a meaningful discussion of the "facts", one needs to know how the "facts" were obtained, what data was excluded, and how much we know (or don't know).  But people tend to want simple answers and gravitate to black/white pronouncements.


----------



## Derrel (May 21, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Facts are meaningless data points until they are put in the right context. And that's where the games begin - the context can be interpreted many different ways.  The other side of the coin is the "unknown" - the stuff that we might know some day, or perhaps we'll never know because we don't have the intellectual capacity to understand it.  To have a meaningful discussion of the "facts", one needs to know how the "facts" were obtained, what data was excluded, and how much we know (or don't know).  But people tend to want simple answers and gravitate to black/white pronouncements.



"ere,take it...."
"whoa, that's heavy man, heavy stuff..."


----------



## Fred Berg (May 21, 2015)

The trouble with scientists is whenever they can't explain some phenomenon or other they cobble together a rather iffy theory which is then promulgated until it is accepted as gospel truth.


----------



## pgriz (May 22, 2015)

Derrel said:


> "whoa, that's heavy man, heavy stuff..."



Well yeah.  When I don't post for a while, I tend to get all serious.  Then the levity and lightness return.  Because in the end, you have to laugh at the sheer absurdity of life.


----------



## Buckster (May 22, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> The trouble with scientists is whenever they can't explain some phenomenon or other they cobble together a rather iffy theory which is then promulgated until it is accepted as gospel truth.


As opposed to non-scientists, who do... what?

Some common examples of what you're saying would be...?


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2015)

unpopular said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



as long as the bank perceives the electromagnetic energy that represents my paycheck...life is good.


----------



## BananaRepublic (May 22, 2015)

I see everything in the past, thats a fact.


----------



## Forkie (May 22, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> The trouble with scientists is whenever they can't explain some phenomenon or other they cobble together a rather iffy theory which is then promulgated until it is accepted as gospel truth.



What?   Which theories have been cobbled together and then simply accepted as fact, exactly?


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2015)

So....am I supposed to take the Red pill or the Blue one?


----------



## KenC (May 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> So....am I supposed to take the Red pill or the Blue one?



No, you swallow the one labeled "drink me"


----------



## snowbear (May 22, 2015)




----------



## The_Traveler (May 22, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> The trouble with scientists is whenever they can't explain some phenomenon or other they cobble together a rather iffy theory which is then promulgated until it is accepted as gospel truth.



I'm with Forkie on this one. A huge generalization that is unprovable except by vague anecdote.
Science works iteratively, looking at facts and then trying to connect them with a reasonable theory. Each successive fact causes changes in the theory as scientists attempt to account for new knowledge. Science attempts to be self-correcting and virtually everything we know comes from years of adapting theories to data points.
The way scientific  'knowledge' becomes public is usually through scientific publications and, typically, scientists submit a paper to a professional journal and it is reviewed, not for its literary style, but for how well the work was done and how well the conclusions are supported by the data. Scientists try to be right so that they aren't shown to be wrong by succeeding work. Scientific theories build on past work and are molded by follow-up work. Eventually some theories are so well documented and supported that they are accepted as fact.

Believers, on the other hand, tend to pick a data point and build a complex theory around that data point and ignore any facts that contradict their theory.

Good examples of belief are young earth creationist theories or anti-vaxxers; the first attempt to explain away all the scientific data about fossils and age dating with non-factual beliefs. the second just modify their beliefs slightly as their position is chipped away and end up ignoring facts they don't like.

Science, big 'S', attempts to be self-correcting.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 22, 2015)

A good example of how science works is the response of the scientific world to Andrew Wakefield's work on vaccines


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> as long as the bank perceives the electromagnetic energy that represents my paycheck...life is good.



Right now, my paycheck ACH is late. :\

*reality breakdown*


----------



## Fred Berg (May 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > The trouble with scientists is whenever they can't explain some phenomenon or other they cobble together a rather iffy theory which is then promulgated until it is accepted as gospel truth.
> ...





Forkie said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > The trouble with scientists is whenever they can't explain some phenomenon or other they cobble together a rather iffy theory which is then promulgated until it is accepted as gospel truth.
> ...



The theory of evolution; the theory of relativity; quantum theory; dark matter theory; black holes to name but a few.

Two trains approach on another at 100 MPH which means that they are closing in on each other with a combined velocity of 200 MPH. Increase the speed of the trains and the effective velocity doubles accordingly. So if the speed of the trains increases to 250 MPH the effective velocity also increases to the combined speed of 500 MPH.  This holds true until the trains reach light speed then... er no, wait a minute, um, we need a new theory. Newton's apple has a wormhole in it (theoretically anyway), where's that German guy with the stone?


----------



## Buckster (May 22, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> The theory of evolution; the theory of relativity; quantum theory; dark matter theory; black holes to name but a few.


  I bet you're serious too!    Thanks for the laugh!!


----------



## Forkie (May 22, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...



Evolution, gravity, quantum theory, dark matter and black holes are not crazy ideas that have been cobbled together.

Evolution has been studied and proven since Darwin first suggested it as an explanation for biodiversity since his publication of _The Origin of Species_ 156 years ago.  Evolution is a fact.  "Natural Selection" is the explanation (the theory, after 156 years of study) about how evolution (the fact) works.   It is certainly not "cobbled together".

Gravity is also a fact and has been since Newton's publication of his _Principia_ 328 years ago.  His theory of gravitation was the best explanation of how the fact of gravity works until Einstein's theory of general relativity fine tuned and corrected Newton's inaccuracies.  The combined studies of the world's astrophysicists over a period of a *third of a millennium* does not a "cobbled together" idea, make.

Stephen Hawking noticed that within Einstein's theory of general relativity suggested the likelihood of black holes.  He went to look for them and found them.  Again - not cobbled.  Hypothesised, searched for, found.  The_ theory_ of how and why they exist is born.

Quantum mechanics and dark matter are mathematical hypotheses which are predicted because the mathematics require them to be there for the numbers to work.  And just like Hawking did with black holes, the search is on to prove them to show that the maths we _already know_ is either correct, by finding them, or incorrect, by not finding them.

The Higgs Boson is another good example of this.  The mathematics of how the universe works suggested there must be another particle that we haven't observed yet in order for the universe to work in this way.  So they built the Large Hadron Collider in order to search for it.  Lo and behold, it was discovered in 2013 and the man who realised it had to exist, Mr. Peter Higgs was awarded the Nobel Prize for it.

Science is *not* cobbled together.  There _are_ theories about how the world works, i.e., in 7 days by a big, almighty  bearded man in the sky that needed to have a rest on the 7th day, that _were _cobbled together by ancient superstitious peoples who had no other way to explain or test how the world, let alone the universe, worked.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > The theory of evolution; the theory of relativity; quantum theory; dark matter theory; black holes to name but a few.
> ...



What, and you think the journalist in the linked article is?


----------



## The_Traveler (May 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > The theory of evolution; the theory of relativity; quantum theory; dark matter theory; black holes to name but a few.
> ...







Fred Berg said:


> What, and you think the journalist in the linked article is?




An attempt at deflection.

In response to your original statement.
All of those theories are excellent attempts to resolve data points as they are found.
Just as science evolved from Galileo's ideas to enable us to direct rockets to orbit comets or asteroid successfully, I expect that Science will deal with the future exactly as it has in the past.
So far there is no grand Unified Theory of Everything but there are excellent theories that work within the world as we know it so they must be right as far as they go.
Science is willing to try to incorporate new data into modified theories - and it isn't done in a way that requires ignoring uncomfortable data.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 22, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...



So does time really slow down on those trains travelling at light speed then or is this necessary to prove a mathematical model of a space-time continuum?  Or are you going to ignore that uncomfortable problem just as Forkie did?

But I think you misunderstand my intent. You, and others on this thread, are *believers*: you have *faith* in science. You are very quick to deride and scoff at anyone who thinks differently and to embark on a witch hunt to smoke out the heretics.  A little polemic intervention and you're champing at the bit, positively frothing at the mouth. Let us suppose, though, that the journalist in the original article wasn't employing irony directed at this unswerving certitude of the scientific fraternity and that the piece was meant to be read at face value. I would challenge that the _*fact fighters*_ will only run out of food, water and oxygen once the boffins have totally buggered the planet up.

Edit: Yes, yes you are right. This is a second attempt at deflection on my part. Not.


----------



## Buckster (May 22, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> So does time really slow down on those trains travelling at light speed then


Yes, time dilation has been confirmed to be true.



Fred Berg said:


> But I think you misunderstand my intent. You, and others on this thread, are *believers*: you have *faith* in science.


No, we don't join hands on Sundays singing about how gravity is real in our own echo-chamber to try to convince each other that it's true in spite of tons of actual factual evidence against it.  Same goes for the rest of science, which is just confirmation of the observable facts that surround us all, you included, like it or not.  Some people just look a lot deeper into things than others to discover and confirm the truth about things you apparently can't even imagine, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

If you can disprove any accepted scientific theories, you should jump right on that and win yourself a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Forkie (May 22, 2015)

It is not "faith" in science.

It is "I think, if I drop a feather and a hammer in a vacuum, they will fall at the same rate because there will be no air resistance to slow the feather down."

*Do the experiment*

"Yes, the theory of air resistance is correct because we can _see it_ to be correct".






You're a photographer.  Your camera works because of the progression in the understanding of how the world and universe works.  Cameras are based around light - arguably one of the most fascinating scientific subjects.  There is no faith involved in how your camera works.  It is real.

And as for your train anecdote - time slows down for the train relative to that of an observer.  Not for the train itself.  For the train itself, _everyone else's_ time slows down relative to that of the train.  This is known.  And every GPS accounts for this effect to calculate your position on the globe.


----------



## table1349 (May 22, 2015)

What you all don't realize is the* one true fact*  is that none of this exists.  You, me, none of this.  We and all of this, everything we believe that we perceive is nothing more than a speck of time in the dream of some being that is unknown to us, the non-existent products of that dream.  

Now take your science, your faith, your what ever, and disprove that theory to the satisfaction of all of the non-existent entities in this non-existant world traveling in this non-existant universe.


----------



## table1349 (May 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> So....am I supposed to take the Red pill or the Blue one?


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2015)

There are two points on the "faith in science" argument. One is the argument that I proposed - that all observations are indirect, and we rely on faith to accept that observations are fundamentally accurate. This kind of "faith in science" I don't mind - because it' really "faith in everything", and science can be thought of as the study of these indirect observations.

But even this starts to break down if you accept that mathematics is a fundamental property of nature. Though this too can be debated.

The other point on "faith in science" is something that I wholly reject - the assumption that science is fact without any attempt to understand on any level the propositions that science makes. This makes science into a religion, and scientists are some sort of infallible prophets. It's one thing to assume that scientists are more likely to be correct about something than you are - for no other reason than they've spent more effort than you can on the subject. But it's an entirely different thing to say that scientist MUST be right, for no other reason than it's "science".

Many armchair atheists will take this position. They will often talk about how they believe in facts, but do not bother to understand on any fundamental level what those facts actually are.


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2015)

And yes. The dilation of time on fast-moving objects has been measured and must be compensated for in order for things like GPS to function properly.


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> What you all don't realize is the* one true fact*  is that none of this exists.  You, me, none of this.  We and all of this, everything we believe that we perceive is nothing more than a speck of time in the dream of some being that is unknown to us, the non-existent products of that dream.
> 
> Now take your science, your faith, your what ever, and disprove that theory to the satisfaction of all of the non-existent entities in this non-existant world traveling in this non-existant universe.



Unprovable theories are unscientific.

That's something I love about science. When the going gets tough, they just call foul.

(this is a principle in philosophy, but I forgot what it's called)


----------



## pgriz (May 22, 2015)

The thing about "science" is that you can never prove a theory, but you can disprove it.  Our understanding of things is always approximative, and by necessity, reductive.   Despite the fact that matter as we know it is made up of rather basic components, there is an emergent complexity when large numbers of simple things are involved.  We, as a species, aren't very good at understanding, or managing complexity.  Perhaps the next level of evolution will result in brains that are able to cope with that higher level of complex inter-relationships, because we certainly struggle with that.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 22, 2015)

Forkie said:


> It is not "faith" in science.
> 
> It is "I think, if I drop a feather and a hammer in a vacuum, they will fall at the same rate because there will be no air resistance to slow the feather down."
> 
> ...



What is known though really? Only that corrections and adjustments are necessary  in the devices that are used to record or measure time as it is understood, to account for a phenomenon which is not. The real question here remains unanswered, possibly even unasked: What is time?


----------



## Fred Berg (May 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > So does time really slow down on those trains travelling at light speed then
> ...



If you can show me, or anyone, even a grain of proof which speaks against the things that people gather to observe on Sundays, Fridays, or Saturdays then I'll be delighted to consider it.

My point about Newton's apple wasn't to question gravity, but to show that when something won't quite fit there is a tendency to _a priori_i theorising in science, which is all well and good until this becomes accepted as though it were _a posteriori _proof.

By the way, Buckster, you may want to consider the difference between evidence and proof.


----------



## unpopular (May 23, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> By the way, Buckster, you may want to consider the difference between evidence and proof.



I do not know if this is in reference to time dilation of moving objects, but:

Hafele Keating experiment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, regardless if this is a result of relativity or not, things do appear to take longer when traveling through space.


----------



## Buckster (May 23, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> If you can show me, or anyone, even a grain of proof which speaks against the things that people gather to observe on Sundays, Fridays, or Saturdays then I'll be delighted to consider it.


This common fallacy by believers to try to shift the burden of proof from the believer to the skeptic doesn't work.

If I claim there are invisible pink poodles with gills who live at the bottom of the ocean and care deeply about your sex life, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me.  You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

If I claim there's an invisible blue dragon who breathes invisible heatless fire sitting on my shoulder right now, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me.  You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

If I claim there's a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between Venus and Earth right now, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me.  You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

The same is true for all claims; The burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the skeptic.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > If you can show me, or anyone, even a grain of proof which speaks against the things that people gather to observe on Sundays, Fridays, or Saturdays then I'll be delighted to consider it.
> ...




But it was not me who brought in this type manoeuvring to the discussion, but rather that was you:



Buckster said:


> No, we don't join hands on Sundays singing about how gravity is real in our own echo-chamber to try to convince each other that it's true in spite of tons of actual factual evidence against it. Same goes for the rest of science, which is just confirmation of the observable facts that surround us all, you included, like it or not. Some people just look a lot deeper into things than others to discover and confirm the truth about things you apparently can't even imagine, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.
> 
> If you can disprove any accepted scientific theories, you should jump right on that and win yourself a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 23, 2015)

It may be time for some to look again at what I wrote in my original post. Read it well, consider it word for word: they were chosen very carefully. Remember also that it was written as a comment on the linked article, so if you haven't read that and considered what it is about, then the time to do so would be now.

What I have noticed is that there has been a common misunderstanding of my meaning; this is clear enough to see in the regrettable, semi-personal, anti-religious undertone in the responses. This is typical behavior, though, by those who feel their strongly held views, assumptions and beliefs are being challenged. They will strike blindly at what they perceive as the threat: people with strong religious convictions often hit out at scientists because they feel undermined by progress, whilst people who are convinced that scientific elucidation has freed society from superstitious activity are inclined to pour scorn and ridicule on religion because in spite of everything, people still cling to their old customs.

My point was, and is, that there is little to choose between science and religion: they work in much the same way, as do their followers. Besides, they are not mutually exclusive and both serve a purpose in society. Religion needs miracles and science needs theories. You pays your money and you takes your choice, either way you'll be sixpence none the wiser.


----------



## Buckster (May 23, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...


Literally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence supporting the scientific theories you question as "cobbled together" exist, and more are being discovered, revealed, and shown every day by the people investigating them.  Those people are called scientists, and that's their job. 

While there is no "obligation" to believe a claim nor to disprove it, in science, anyone who *CAN* disprove one of those theories with overwhelming evidence like that instantly wins fame and fortune in the scientific world, including Nobel prizes, so testing those theories is constantly going on.  The fact that those theories continue to withstand those many tests over time lends even more credence to them.  That is why I suggested that if you really think they're "cobbled together" (without actual evidence) then you should get in line with 10,000 others trying to disprove them, and win a Noble if you can really pull it off.

Here's where the rubber meets the road: No scientist says, "I claim that "X" is true.  I have no proof, no evidence, nothing to support it, not even a mathematical equation.  I just pulled it out of my butt last night after too much heroin and pizza.  If you cannot disprove what I've just now claimed, you must accept it."

That's essentially what you're saying though when it comes to those beliefs that take place outside of scientific study; Beliefs that involve the supernatural and have no proof or evidence at all - only claims.  You're saying that's all they need are the claims, and that the skeptic has some obligation to disprove those claims, or they remain viable.

But they don't.

Any claims without evidence are on the same footing as the claims without evidence about invisible pink poodles, invisible blue dragons, or teapots in orbit, as examples.  They don't require being disproved by anyone to remain unbelievable.  They can be waved away and dismissed with a laugh, at least until such time as credible evidence from the claimants of any of them is presented, examined and tested.

They are very much different from the scientific theories that have tens of thousands of pieces of evidence that continue to withstand scrutiny and testing.

Now, it's about time to recognize that this thread is headed into Lock-Land as it gets deeper and deeper into religion, which is a no-no here at TPF.  I've been trying my best to avoid going there, but it's getting more difficult with each new round of posting.  If I stop replying, it's because I'm going to try to avoid breaking that rule.  It doesn't mean I don't have a reply, just that I'm not going to voice it here.  Feel free to PM or email me if you want to continue the conversation deeper into religion.


----------



## BananaRepublic (May 23, 2015)

In a two man enter one man leaves Thunderdom style fight to the death scenario who would win, Science or Religion.


----------



## Buckster (May 23, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> My point was, and is, that there is little to choose between science and religion: they work in much the same way, as do their followers. Besides, they are not mutually exclusive and both serve a purpose in society. Religion needs miracles and science needs theories. You pays your money and you takes your choice, either way you'll be sixpence none the wiser.


Let's test that theory.

Say you order two large pizzas with everything to satisfy the hunger of several friends who dropped in unexpectedly.  Twenty minutes later there's a knock at the door and there's a guy standing there with his vinyl bag that keeps the pizzas warm for the delivery.

He pulls the first box out and hands it to you.  You can feel the heft and the warmth and smell the pizza inside it.  You turn and hand it to someone else, and they rush off to open the box so the guests can start digging in.

The guy pulls out the second box and hands it to you.  It feels unusually lightweight, like an empty box - there's no heft to it.  It's not warm, and smells like an empty box instead of a pizza with everything.  Curious, you open it up and see no pizza.  It looks JUST LIKE an empty box.

The guy at the door says, "That's fifteen bucks apiece, so your total is thirty bucks."

You say, "but I only got one pizza, not two.  This box is empty." and you show him the box.  He says, "No, there's a pizza in there.  You just can't see it because it's an invisible, weightless pizza.  Just trust me and take my word for it - it's there."

Are they really the same?  Are they really equal?  Are you really going to say that the one with no actual evidence of a real pizza is the same as the one that you and your guests can actually see, feel, smell and taste?

Do you "pays your money" or not?


----------



## pgriz (May 23, 2015)

BananaRepublic said:


> In a two man enter one man leaves Thunderdom style fight to the death scenario who would win, Science or Religion.



I'm hoping it's science (that's small-s not big-S science), since ultimately the "truth" is embedded in the natural world, and it is up to us to learn about it and understand it.  But science is always going to have loose ends with stuff that is not known or not yet discovered, and perhaps, not even knowable by us at our stage of evolution.  The laws of physics and chemistry will most probably be the same, no matter where in the universe they are measured, or by whom (setting aside, for the moment, the discussion of fundamental constants not being constant).


Religion, on the other hand, is a human creation and as such suffers from all the usual problems of humans.  It is, however, very attractive to people who want their world to be neat and tidy, with certainties and rules and clear guidance as to what's right and wrong.  Fundamentalist religions have their bed-rock truths which you can doubt or dispute only at the risk of being killed (the choice of appropriate method depends on the time in history, the religion, and the region).  Underlying all religions (well, at least the traditional ones), is a set of assumptions (call them beliefs) about how the world "should" work and how to distinguish "right" from "wrong".  However one justifies one's religion, ultimately it is about a belief, something that cannot be proven or disproven (note that I'm not talking about the BASIS of the belief, but the belief itself).

There is another aspect to this discussion, and that is the confabulation of "science" with "technology".  Technology takes basic science and turns it into human tools.  Understanding how genetic material works is science, manipulating the genes to introduce or remove certain properties is technology.  Understanding how light amplification works is science, using this to make DVD readers or "death rays" is technology.  Science is amoral, whereas technology is a human creation and therefore does have a morality (or lack of) implicit in it.  Technology is tool-making.  

If we go back to the OP, the article referenced points to those who will ignore evidence to hold onto whatever article of faiths they have.  Ideology is quite similar to religion in that it has some basic assumptions, upon which the whole edifice of the ideology is built.  And as for religions, there is a strong tendency to ignore contradictory evidence or even evidence that seems to disprove the tenets of the ideology.  Whether the ideology is "free-market" or "communism" or "socialism" or "consumerism", the believers do not accept evidence to the contrary.  Personally, I would like more people to be sceptics, people who always question the basis behind any set of pronouncements.  That's different from cynics, by the way.


----------



## bribrius (May 23, 2015)

Ecclesiastes 1 NIV - Everything Is Meaningless - The words - Bible Gateway


----------



## bribrius (May 23, 2015)

pgriz said:


> BananaRepublic said:
> 
> 
> > In a two man enter one man leaves Thunderdom style fight to the death scenario who would win, Science or Religion.
> ...


from dust you came, from dust you shall return. And as all, you will be long forgotten. Science is no savior either. While a ant can seek to climb, it remains a ant.


----------



## bribrius (May 23, 2015)




----------



## Buckster (May 23, 2015)

Enjoy one of my favorite lectures:


----------



## pgriz (May 23, 2015)

Brian, on one point I will disagree with you.  We've reached a level of understanding in which we can conceptualize the lack of knowledge.  The invention of zero (0) was a significant milestone in the development of mathematics.  As for "Science" being a saviour, perhaps we're asking the wrong question.  For me, "science" is a process of discovery, and of inquiry, which follows a set of principles (observation, theory, testing of the hypothesis, etc.).  The problem for us as a species, our tool-making ability is much greater than our ability to understand how our actions have consequences, most of which we are blissfully unaware of.


----------



## bribrius (May 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


science is its own religion, proven or disproven .  The aspect of evolution to perhaps a higher state, which is assumed a higher state by nature. As man assumes he is higher than the chimpanzee. However both accepts the same end result and fate. My question with such a steadfast belief and supporter of science. Is. Where is it everyone thinks they are going?


----------



## pgriz (May 23, 2015)

Maybe, as the song goes, it's not the destination that's important, but the journey.


----------



## bribrius (May 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Enjoy one of my favorite lectures:


and............
if you were going to place bets....

Pascal s Wager - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## bribrius (May 23, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Maybe, as the song goes, it's not the destination that's important, but the journey.


"16 I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief."

Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom,
and also madness and folly.
What more can the king’s successor do
than what has already been done?
13 I saw that wisdom 
just as light is better than darkness.
14 The wise have eyes in their heads,
while the fool walks in the darkness;
but I came to realize
that the same fate overtakes them both."
 “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work,because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?





beyond me, ignorance is bliss. Perhaps the most fortunate were those never born. I am huge fan of Ecclesiastes. Read it once a year. Then i go build something or plant something in the ground and find my peace with it.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 23, 2015)

Pascal s Wager

Two main objections are often raised to Pascal's Wager.

(1) To believe in God simply for the payoff is the wrong motive for belief. Such self-serving individuals would not properly serve the Deity.

(2) In order to be sure of a payoff, an individual would not know which God or gods to believe in to cover the conditions of the wager. Would the Wager also hold for Zeus, Odin, or Mithra? One would have to believe in all gods to be sure, but if there were only one God in fact, then this strategy would defeat itself.


----------



## unpopular (May 23, 2015)

bribrius said:


>


_
What the Bleep Do We Know_ should never be cited.


----------



## Buckster (May 23, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Enjoy one of my favorite lectures:
> ...


Pascal's Wager is supremely flawed, and has been known to be supremely flawed from it's inception.

Believing in *A* god isn't enough.  You have to believe in the CORRECT god, or you're screwed, according to nearly every religion ever devised.  Not only that, you usually have to ALSO believe in the correct interpretation (religious sect) of that one correct god, or your screwed, again according to nearly every religion ever devised.

Since there are 30,000 variations on Christianity alone, plus all the other current religions, plus all the ancient religions that are now seen as mere myths by even the most devout believers, the chances of buying the wrong ticket in a Pascal's Wager are extremely high.

It's just like lottery tickets.  It's not enough that you buy one.  You have to buy the winning one, or you lose even more than the person who didn't blow even a dollar on it.

And in the end, it's not enough just to SAY you bought it, which plenty of people do so as not to have a confrontation with the faithful about it and possibly lose friends, family, job, community standing, etc.  No - you have to ACTUALLY buy it.

So even IF you buy into Pascal's Wager "just in case", and even IF you choose the right god, and even IF you choose the right religion, if you don't ACTUALLY believe it, you're STILL screwed, and therein lies yet another problem with it.

If I tell you there's an invisible pizza in that empty box, and that you shouldn't take the chance of not believing me, and instead continue to think that there's not an invisible pizza, and I remind you that IF you're wrong and I'm right you will suffer for eternity over it, will that be enough for you to ACTUALLY believe that there really IS an invisible pizza in that empty box?

For most rational, reasonable people, the answer is a resounding, "no, it's not enough - not by a long shot.  Your story about an invisible pizza in that box is BS, and I don't buy it for a minute."  But even if you just THINK that, and say instead, "YES!  I DO BELIEVE IN THE INVISIBLE PIZZA!!!  HALLELUJAH!!!", you're still screwed because now YOU'RE full of BS.


----------



## bribrius (May 23, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Pascal s Wager
> 
> Two main objections are often raised to Pascal's Wager.
> 
> ...


That would be for the individual to decide. Personally, i don't follow a particular religion and most often avoid them. If i were wagering, i would suggest there is one, that has been called many names amongst many people. Much a attempted explanation for the human condition and existence, or natural events. Each giving their personal twist to it in their adaptive religion. In fact it is the human titles, doctrines i separate from it as fallibility. Then i just nolonger concern myself. The largest objective to pascals wager may be the assumption of eternal life. Personally, i am pretty content with just accepting the unknown and with the plausibility of being recycled through the ground. So no pay off needed.


----------



## Buckster (May 23, 2015)

bribrius said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Pascal s Wager
> ...


As Pascal asked, "What if you're wrong?"  

What if there IS one god and that god DOES insist that you believe in him alone and follow his rules to the letter as set forth by one particular sect OR you will suffer throughout eternity to come?  

What good then does believing your false religion and your false god do you, in terms of Pascal's Wager, since you brought it up?

Aren't you scared you might be wrong?


----------



## table1349 (May 23, 2015)

Here you are, religion and science living side by side in perfect harmony.  Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

















And finally remember...........


----------



## bribrius (May 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


I start from the premise that men created religions.
I sort through the religions to find any elements of potential truth they may have.
I end with the result of the only common being a creator. Albeit much wisdom can be found across many doctrines.
I look to science, and its failed attempts to explain something eternally existing, something that came from nothing. Which tells me something must have always existed, in order to a creation to occur. It doesn't matter how far you go back, even before the big bang. Something came from nothing, something existed eternally. Dawkins claimed the universe is eternal, do you believe that? Where did it come from? where did it start? I find it much easier to believe in a eternal creator than to believe the universe and its elements magically derived from a big bang, with no explanation for where the elements from the big bang came from. There is always a beginning, before the beginning must be a eternal.
What good does it do me? To me it is acceptance of a truth, something beyond my understanding that must exist and always existed. I could just say there is no eternal being, but that would be closer to lying to myself. Am i scared of being right or wrong? No. I am more scared of not having the humility and being to egotistical to admit something existed eternally beyond my scope of reason.


----------



## unpopular (May 23, 2015)

bribrius said:


> I start from the premise that *men *created religions.


----------



## Buckster (May 23, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


1. You didn't watch the video lecture I provided, or you would have the answers as to how a universe comes from nothing without a deity.

2. You just threw Pascal's Wager out the window with your attempt to avoid my actual questions, as predicted.  So why'd you bring it up in the first place?


----------



## bribrius (May 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


I skimmed through it, about a half hour. Much like many other videos, it fails. I have watched many a video. If there is a certain few minutes in there you would like to point me toward, i may take the time to look at it further. For me it starts with "in the beginning there was NOTHING" Now if they can explain that, they might have my attention. Until then it is just more people trying to hypothesize what they do not know.
Why did i bring up pascals theory? More for you than me. I am at peace, you seemed more concerned than I. Since you said you had cancer (are you soon to be dying?) it might give you a moment of further contemplation. As a minister once told me (interesting thought even if one doesn't believe in their religion)
"If i am right then i have the benefits of being right. If i am wrong, then i still lived my life and have lost nothing. If you are wrong. what have you lost?"
Perhaps whatever answers you seek, you might look for within yourself. I am probably not one to debate with, as i am much more a fatalist, agnostic, perhaps a deist. You know, more studious of religion than a follower of one. I can assure you we all end up dead. Beyond that we all make our own decisions. I tend to look at atheists as about the same level as hard core fundies though. Just two opposing sides of the same coin. You might as well consider atheism its own religion,.


----------



## unpopular (May 23, 2015)

First of all, I think Pascal's proposition is more benificial to point out the absurdity of the Christian concept of salvation. I have no idea if Pascal meant this as tongue-and-cheek (by most accounts, no) but I certainly take it that way.

Second, I think it's better to think of the big bang as "in the beginning there was no thing" not "nothing". There was energy, and according to both Einstein and Newton energy and matter are essentially one in the same.

There are questions about the big bang, of course, such as what triggered it and what is outside of it - what are we expanding into? How did the energy inside the singularity come to be compressed in the first place - shouldn't there be something of greater energy that held the singularity in from outside until the moment that it gave up? And if it were a true singularity, would the energy that contained it likewise need to be infinite?

What I don't really understand about all this is why the big bang must be a specific point in time. We cannot observe the big bang - matter was too dense beyond about 13M years after for our telescopes to look through - so how do we know that the universe hasn't always been expanding? How do you know that stuff isn't being ejected from the center of the universe now? Why do we assume that the universe "started" in the first place?


----------



## bribrius (May 23, 2015)

unpopular said:


> First of all, I think Pascal's proposition is more benificial to point out the absurdity of the Christian concept of salvation. I have no idea if Pascal meant this as tongue-and-cheek (by most accounts, no) but I certainly take it that way.
> 
> Second, I think it's better to think of the big bang as "in the beginning there was no thing" not "nothing". There was energy, and according to both Einstein and Newton energy and matter are essentially one in the same.
> 
> ...


sounds very much like omega point theory/logos
Omega Point - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

logos you can still separate from the christian foundation and logos/word (the word in the beginning was the word) for a approach of "through which all things are made" separate of the christian/judaism religion.
logos in and of itself is a interest concept to contemplate. While repeated in the bible logos/the word has ramifications beyond the judaism text.


----------



## unpopular (May 23, 2015)

What if the energy that compresses the singularity is exchanged into the universe, essentially turning itself inside out?


----------



## Designer (May 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Here's where the rubber meets the road: No scientist says, "I claim that "X" is true.  I have no proof, no evidence, nothing to support it, not even a mathematical equation.  I just pulled it out of my butt last night after too much heroin and pizza.  If you cannot disprove what I've just now claimed, you must accept it."


Actually, yes, this is going on right now.

In deference to TPF's policy against politically charged posts, I will not elaborate.


----------



## pgriz (May 23, 2015)

The universe may in fact be eternal, but we may not be able to understand this anymore than a ant can understand orbital physics.  When scientists try to determine why certain constants have the values that they do, they often come to the conclusion that the specific properties are rather arbitrary.  However, these values are tuned in such a way that they make matter possible, and for us to be able to exist.  Some see in this the hand of God.  Others hypothesize that the "big bang" that created our universe is actually a bubble in a much larger space, where spontaneous generation of universes is an on-going process, with each created universe having a arbitrary set of basic properties.  In most of those universes, the physical laws are different from ours, and in most life as we understand it would not be possible.  So the fact that WE exist may be a cosmic coincidence where all the physical properties coalesced to values which would allow life as we know it.  Personally, I have a hard time understanding how multiple universes could exist, but then my intellect has a hard time understanding time as the fourth dimension.  Yet physicists have conceptualized universes with  many more dimensions than four, and if that is in fact possible, then it's quite possible that the other dimensions are connected to the ones we perceive in ways that our minds cannot understand (yet).  Sorry, Buckster, haven't yet watched your posted lecture.  Planning to do that while I'm resting my tired body after doing some yard work which I'm going to start in a few minutes.  It may have already answered some of the questions I'm asking.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 23, 2015)

pgriz said:


> The universe may in fact be eternal, but we may not be able to understand this anymore than a ant can understand orbital physics



I think this is a great sentence.
As a (former) scientist, I can live with ambiguity while trying to pin down certainty.
It has always been my opinion that it is people who are afraid of the ambiguity of the real world that find and cling to the certainty of the definite belief.


----------



## pgriz (May 23, 2015)

unpopular said:


> What if the energy that compresses the singularity is exchanged into the universe, essentially turning itself inside out?



The problem is that we may be not asking the right questions, or seeing the question from the right perspective.  If we perceive only four dimensions, and yet "space" is actually a higher-order structure, then the particles and energies in those other dimensions may have an effect on the dimensions we perceive, but would be otherwise invisible to us.  The so-called dark matter may in fact give us an opening into that.  The grand unification theory which tries to reconcile gravity/relativity with quantum effects may also reach into the higher-order dimensions to get things to play nice together.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 23, 2015)

It is much easier and more comforting to assume that some benevolent force is watching over us rather than to contemplate that we may be rather stupid, albeit complex, organisms that are just muddling around in our little part of reality.

It is empowering and, in my opinion, rather pretentious to think that any one of us has actually some pull with this benevolent force.

One look at the "pillars of creation" , a structure with arms that are 4 light years long and that was destroyed 1000 years ago, should make any 'believer' wonder really about his importance in this cosmos. Persisting in belief after seeing this photograph is really a defense mechanism.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 24, 2015)

It's all gone a little religious, hasn't it? It wasn't my intention to steer things in that direction.

The article claims that there are people who are resistant to facts and that scientists are puzzled by this phenomenon.

It seems that many people are starting to become indifferent to science, perhaps some are turning away from it because it worries them or they feel it is no longer some sort of quest for knowledge which will serve and benefit all, but rather that it has become a tool of multi-national companies and is used more and more to make as much profit for them without much or any consideration of the consequences.

When people can ignite their tap water, or see good arable land being used to produce eco-fuel instead of food crops although the prices in the markets are high and there are people starving in the world, or when they find out that their cornflakes contain chromosomes from fish, well it's hardly surprising.

Also, a certain apathy might well be expected when billions of USD are invested in projects such as the LHC, or in going to the Moon (and soon enough  Mars) and yet ordinary working people can't even afford to go to a dentist and many millions in the world have no access to fresh drinking water and receive little or no education.

Science is perhaps its own worst enemy in this case as it appears to have lost touch with the reality of the world and would seem to be concerning itself more and more with high and mighty concerns (in and of themselves very noble, certainly) but losing touch with the grassroots. Religion (and I refer here to the christian churches in Germany in particular because although I personally am not a religious person these are what I read about in my newspaper, etc., ) has quite similar problems.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 24, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > My point was, and is, that there is little to choose between science and religion: they work in much the same way, as do their followers. Besides, they are not mutually exclusive and both serve a purpose in society. Religion needs miracles and science needs theories. You pays your money and you takes your choice, either way you'll be sixpence none the wiser.
> ...



You know what they say: Man cannot live by pizza alone.


----------



## bribrius (May 24, 2015)

pgriz said:


> The universe may in fact be eternal, but we may not be able to understand this anymore than a ant can understand orbital physics.  When scientists try to determine why certain constants have the values that they do, they often come to the conclusion that the specific properties are rather arbitrary.  However, these values are tuned in such a way that they make matter possible, and for us to be able to exist.  Some see in this the hand of God.  Others hypothesize that the "big bang" that created our universe is actually a bubble in a much larger space, where spontaneous generation of universes is an on-going process, with each created universe having a arbitrary set of basic properties.  In most of those universes, the physical laws are different from ours, and in most life as we understand it would not be possible.  So the fact that WE exist may be a cosmic coincidence where all the physical properties coalesced to values which would allow life as we know it.  Personally, I have a hard time understanding how multiple universes could exist, but then my intellect has a hard time understanding time as the fourth dimension.  Yet physicists have conceptualized universes with  many more dimensions than four, and if that is in fact possible, then it's quite possible that the other dimensions are connected to the ones we perceive in ways that our minds cannot understand (yet).  Sorry, Buckster, haven't yet watched your posted lecture.  Planning to do that while I'm resting my tired body after doing some yard work which I'm going to start in a few minutes.  It may have already answered some of the questions I'm asking.


The universe is eternal? Do you believe that? I have trouble believing that.  Put it on a smaller scale. The ant comes upon a rock. Ant could suppose the rock was always there.....
Any matter (could just be my take on it) i figure started somewhere, and eventually gets traced back to a beginning from nothing.


----------



## bribrius (May 24, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> It is much easier and more comforting to assume that some benevolent force is watching over us rather than to contemplate that we may be rather stupid, albeit complex, organisms that are just muddling around in our little part of reality.
> 
> It is empowering and, in my opinion, rather pretentious to think that any one of us has actually some pull with this benevolent force.
> 
> One look at the "pillars of creation" , a structure with arms that are 4 light years long and that was destroyed 1000 years ago, should make any 'believer' wonder really about his importance in this cosmos. Persisting in belief after seeing this photograph is really a defense mechanism.


comforting? eh.......  Various religions could be considered many things but in general a vengeful God looking to strike you dead or send you to fire and brimstone i wouldn't necessarily call comforting...

you know that whole thing... If you want to know the creator. Look at the creation.
Do not worship the creation though, but the creator.
meh, see, this is the line where i usually find myself on the other side. While i love 57 chevys i don't forget someone designed an built them.


----------



## BananaRepublic (May 24, 2015)

Back some 1500 years ago or so the emperor Constantine assimilated the christian belief system into the Roman empire. He would welcome people into Constantinople/Istanbul to live but he would say to people "do you see that Aqua dome over there the water in that is only for christians".

Centuries later  christian congregations such as the catholic church operate on the same principles, "come to church every Sunday pray to god and you'll get into heaven, O by the way god looks fondly on those who donate toward the popes helicopter payments.

The Bible is a book, the christian church is merely an extension of the Roman empire and both were constructed by men. I don't know about god but I do know that if I take a swan dive off the balcony I will fall at a rate of 9.18 meters per second  squared until I reach terminal velocity or concrete.


----------



## table1349 (May 24, 2015)




----------



## bribrius (May 24, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


>


is it really a fight? Or can they be one in the same


----------



## table1349 (May 24, 2015)

bribrius said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Oh you silly dreamer you.  Give it another page or two and see what happens.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 24, 2015)

bribrius said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I thinks so, yes, and perhaps they are closer to one another than many realise . Early scientists were often religious men and women and this article might be of interest: Monastic medicine medieval herbalism meets modern science www.scienceinschool.org


----------



## The_Traveler (May 24, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



That is amazing astounding crap and totally off the topic.
Science doesn't need religion and, clearly, religion has no use for science except to try to incorporate reality into dogma.
Science doesn't care when the world 'began' except to understand how the cosmos works.
Science is anti-belief because belief inhibits progress.
Belief sets up barriers to change.


----------



## Derrel (May 24, 2015)

This post deserves a Troll of The Month Award....

Masterful trolling, Keith, simply splendidly done! This is like a downrigger trolling pass, made with three spoons on the line, one at the end of the line, the other two sent down on sliders, and a three-fish salmon limit boated on one, single pass. The concept behind this trolling pass was perfectly chosen. Unfortunately, this afternoon's cellular phone privacy fearmongering post is starting off very slowly...but hey, who knows, maybe there will be an evening bite shortly before the sun sets and some flatlines up near the surface might draw some strikes.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 24, 2015)

Derrel said:


> This post deserves a Troll of The Month Award....
> 
> Masterful trolling, Keith, simply splendidly done! This is like a downrigger trolling pass, made with three spoons on the line, one at the end of the line, the other two sent down on sliders, and a three-fish salmon limit boated on one, single pass. The concept behind this trolling pass was perfectly chosen. Unfortunately, this afternoon's cellular phone privacy fearmongering post is starting off very slowly...but hey, who knows, maybe there will be an evening bite shortly before the sun sets and some flatlines up near the surface might draw some strikes.



I've noticed that Derrel rarely makes a comment without a negative slam at someone or some attitude or some thing.
It must be difficult to keep that kind of negativity in check.

Now wait.
Soon there will be a long response from Derrel, often with quotes, etc.


----------



## unpopular (May 24, 2015)

bribrius said:


> The universe is eternal? Do you believe that? I have trouble believing that.  Put it on a smaller scale. The ant comes upon a rock. Ant could suppose the rock was always there.....
> Any matter (could just be my take on it) i figure started somewhere, and eventually gets traced back to a beginning from nothing.



the rock has always been there. it just wasn't always a rock.  the question isn't if the universe is eternal - I don't believe that everything popped up out of nothing - the question is will the universe always be something that humans can comprehend as the universe.


----------



## table1349 (May 24, 2015)

And so it begins.  


The_Traveler said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


Guess you will never change.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 25, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Well, it might be interesting for some to read and it demonstrates that religion isn't only about miracles and faith but also has a pragmatic side to it: these early monks might well have prayed for the deliverance of their patients but they also understood that this probably wouldn't be enough on its own and so they applied what knowledge of medicine they had to help to alleviate the ailments.

But you seem to be avoiding the key issue in all this and your very strong views are beginning to look a bit like an avoidance tactic.
The article suggests that people are turning off from facts, losing interest in science perhaps. My thoughts on why this is, as summed up in my original post (which was clearly misread by some: probably the mix of humour and polemic was a bit heady and the irony was missed ) is because scientists have come to be perceived much in the same way as religious leaders: they tend to sermonise and to present their facts, which are often theories only, with omnipotent confidence in their verity. But more than this, scientists become unreasonably aggressive when challenged, they close ranks and seek to ridicule those who deign to question them. If you think this is not so, simply read through this thread from beginning to end and a clear enough pattern will emerge in support of my hypothesis.

An example. When I was asked to say which theories had been_ cobbled together_ by scientists to cover the gaps in their knowledge, I listed a number of very well known and older theories as well as one or two newer less well disseminated ones but which are hot topics right now. The response was a mixture of scorn and rancour from some and an attempt to show how these theories have been supported and proven with evidence gained through study and research from others. Evidence comes in many forms, though, and is not proof in and of itself, and the trouble with theories is that it is very difficult to corroborate and verify them. The theories I listed have become accepted by many as set in stone and yet they are all unproven, all still theories. That is not to say they are not useful, and the example of how GPS systems account for the so called _dilation of time _is a good example of how science can overcome difficulties whilst working with partial understanding and incomplete knowledge. The space-time continuum mathematical theory has helped in identifying an anomaly in recording devices which can then be overcome with adjustments, yet this is not to say that it is really understood what is happening and this anomaly once being observed does not provide enough evidence to prove that time is relative: not enough is known about time to jump to this conclusion.

And this is really the point: both science and religion are shrouded in mystery and half truths which some people turn away from.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 25, 2015)

^^
I don't like what I see
I press the disagree
It adds no discussion
But feels good to me


----------



## pgriz (May 25, 2015)

Well, perhaps it is semantics, but scientific theories can NOT be proven.  They can, however be disproven.  At best, our scientific theories are statements of our current understanding, with a confidence level that can be pretty high (but never 100%), and always subject to revision once new evidence is obtained. 

Perhaps the response is due to the phrase "cobbled together", which implies an ad-hoc or rather unstructured collection of mostly-unrelated facts.  That may be true for an inital hypothesis, but usually by the time the science gets enough information and tests the hypothesis many different ways, the resulting assembly of knowledge can be dignified as a scientific theory, and pretty much all such theories are subject to a rather rigorous process of verification and vetting.

Of course, science being conducted by humans, there is always the possibility of error and selection blindness, and a myriad of other human failings that can influence the expression of the theory, but in general the peer-review process is reasonably good at finding the chaff among the grain.

However, this discussion does not address the issues of the original post and article, which, although written in a humorous way, still points to the propensity for humans to selectively filter out anything that does not correspond to their current point of view.


----------



## table1349 (May 25, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Well, perhaps it is semantics, but scientific theories can NOT be proven.  They can, however be disproven.  At best, our scientific theories are statements of our current understanding, with a confidence level that can be pretty high (but never 100%), and always subject to revision once new evidence is obtained.
> 
> Perhaps the response is due to the phrase "cobbled together", which implies an ad-hoc or rather unstructured collection of mostly-unrelated facts.  That may be true for an inital hypothesis, but usually by the time the science gets enough information and tests the hypothesis many different ways, the resulting assembly of knowledge can be dignified as a scientific theory, and pretty much all such theories are subject to a rather rigorous process of verification and vetting.
> 
> ...


Good for the goose.....good for the gander.

Well, perhaps it is semantics, but religious doctrine can NOT be proven.  They can, however be disproven.  At best, our religious beliefs are statements of our current understanding, with a confidence level that can be pretty high (but never 100%), and always subject to revision once new evidence is obtained.

Perhaps the response is due to the phrase "cobbled together", which implies an ad-hoc or rather unstructured collection of mostly-unrelated facts.  That may be true for an initial doctrine , but usually by the time religion gets enough information and tests the beliefs many different ways, the resulting assembly of knowledge can be dignified as a religious doctrine, and pretty much all such doctrine's are subject to a rather rigorous process of verification and vetting.

Of course, religion being conducted by humans, there is always the possibility of error and selection blindness, and a myriad of other human failings that can influence the expression of the faith, but in general the peer-review process is reasonably good at finding the chaff among the selected grain.

However, this discussion does not address the issues of the original post and article, which, although written in a humorous way, still points to the propensity for humans to selectively filter out anything that does not correspond to their current point of view.


----------



## pixmedic (May 25, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> ^^
> I don't like what I see
> I press the disagree
> It adds no discussion
> But feels good to me



to be fair, the same thing can be said or any of the buttons.


----------



## table1349 (May 25, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > ^^
> ...


It would be nice at times to be able to select multiple buttons.


----------



## Designer (May 25, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> It would be nice at times to be able to select multiple buttons.


Excellent idea! 

With enough of the right kind of buttons, one could almost compose a complete reply using only the buttons.


----------



## Derrel (May 25, 2015)

Fred Berg said:
			
		

> ^^
> I don't like what I see
> I press the disagree
> It adds no discussion
> But feels good to me



Yeah...that's what the Disagree button is for...


----------



## Fred Berg (May 25, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Well, perhaps it is semantics, but scientific theories can NOT be proven.  They can, however be disproven.  At best, our scientific theories are statements of our current understanding, with a confidence level that can be pretty high (but never 100%), and always subject to revision once new evidence is obtained.
> 
> Perhaps the response is due to the phrase "cobbled together", which implies an ad-hoc or rather unstructured collection of mostly-unrelated facts.  That may be true for an inital hypothesis, but usually by the time the science gets enough information and tests the hypothesis many different ways, the resulting assembly of knowledge can be dignified as a scientific theory, and pretty much all such theories are subject to a rather rigorous process of verification and vetting.
> 
> ...



*Ironic that the discussion demonstrates this to some extent *

Cobbled together was probably going too far in hindsight but no apologies for that because a very interesting discussion ensued.


----------



## Buckster (May 25, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oops!  I thought it was to voice the fact that I actually do disagree with what was said, but want to avoid using words that some might find offensive and possibly cause the thread to be locked and/or myself to get banned.

Like, if someone claimed that the moon really is made of green cheese and scientists who say otherwise are lying and all involved in a giant world-wide conspiracy, I think it would be better for all if I voice my opinion by hitting the disagree button, rather than to put my *actual* thoughts into words.


----------



## Designer (May 25, 2015)

Plus, it's a lot easier.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...


Maybe you should pray about it...


----------



## Fred Berg (May 26, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...



Or because try as you might, you have been unable to steer the thread in the direction you'd like it to go: to the land of wild accusations and putting words in other people's mouths. Flaming shame when people won't rise to the bait, isn't it? Never mind, just go back to fishing for bites under your bridge.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

can imagine having to do a portrait of God. How on earth would you ever keep from blowing out the highlights....?


----------



## KenC (May 26, 2015)

Designer said:


> With enough of the right kind of buttons, one could almost compose a complete reply using only the buttons.



If this went far enough it might be the only time a language with an alphabet evolved into one using hieroglyphics.


----------



## unpopular (May 26, 2015)

The idea that theories cannot be proven but can be disproved is illogical. Take for example the autism-vaccine theory. Now, I am in NO WAY saying that vaccines cause autism (and frankly, the position that kids are better off with measles than autism oughtright offends me). However, there is no way to be certain, without looking at every single case of autism, that vaccines DON'T - under the right set of circumstances, cause autism. This is the same logical principle that concludes that theories cannot be proven (see Black Swan Theory).

Just as theories are supported by evidence, theories are likewise unsupported by evidence. However, this does not positively conclude a theory is disproved - only that the probability of the affirmative is low.

So I think the better way to look at theories is in the construct that every theory is in fact two: when you say "I have a theory that vaccines cause autism" you are likewise saying that "I have a theory that vaccines don't cause autism". Through the scientific method both theories are tested with one outcome being more likely than the other. In this case, evidence supports the latter to a higher degree of certainty than the prior.


----------



## table1349 (May 26, 2015)

KenC said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > With enough of the right kind of buttons, one could almost compose a complete reply using only the buttons.
> ...


Naaah.... Won't need to happen, there has already got to be a Klingon language only forum somewhere.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

aliens left us all here, but we already known this...


----------



## table1349 (May 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> can imagine having to do a portrait of God. How on earth would you ever keep from blowing out the highlights....?


Ohh.........That could be really bad if you didn't satisfy that customer.  Especailly if God turned out to be an Angry Woman having a bad hair day.

That's the one thing that is even more scarry than Mistress Terri with her favorite whip.


psssst.....bribrius,  I'm thinkng that it would probably be "how in Heaven's name would you ever keep from blowing out the highlights.  She's probably to busy to come to your studio for a sitting.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > can imagine having to do a portrait of God. How on earth would you ever keep from blowing out the highlights....?
> ...


would have to though. My odds of making it up there are looking kind of slim...


----------



## table1349 (May 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


"Dying man couldn't make up his mind which place to go to -- both have their advantages, "heaven for climate, hell for society!"
_Mark Twain
_
Besides, she might give you a one day pass to get the picture done.  Kind of like going to Disney World.  Just don't shop at the gift shop.  To damn expensive.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

science has its benefits as well. Shows us how stupid we were yesterday and how smart we are today.


----------



## table1349 (May 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> science has its benefits as well. Shows us how stupid we were yesterday and how smart we are today.


I would have to disagree with that statement.  Based on the History of Humanity, Science shows us how stupid we were yesterday and how we have gained an understaing of that.  I say that because Science in the future will surely show how stupid we were when today becomes yesterday.  I'm not sure we are all that smart today, just not as stupid.


----------



## pixmedic (May 26, 2015)

I'm not convinced that we, as a people, are "smarter" now than we were thousands of years ago.  We have higher technology  sure, but we have only "discovered" in the last few centuries things that our ancestors "knew" 5 thousand plus years ago. This is especially true concerning mathematics and cosmology.

There are plenty of things we have a much better understanding of now, but I think at some point in our history, humanity suffered a major regression and we have been playing catch up ever since


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> I'm not convinced that we, as a people, are "smarter" now than we were thousands of years ago.  We have higher technology  sure, but we have only "discovered" in the last few centuries things that our ancestors "knew" 5 thousand plus years ago. This is especially true concerning mathematics and cosmology.
> 
> There are plenty of things we have a much better understanding of now, but I think at some point in our history, humanity suffered a major regression and we have been playing catch up ever since


i have a ipad, i must be smart.


----------



## table1349 (May 26, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> I'm not convinced that we, as a people, are "smarter" now than we were thousands of years ago.  We have higher technology  sure, but we have only "discovered" in the last few centuries things that our ancestors "knew" 5 thousand plus years ago. This is especially true concerning mathematics and cosmology.
> 
> There are plenty of things we have a much better understanding of now, but I think at some point in our history, humanity suffered a major regression and we have been playing catch up ever since


I could make a suggestion as to what that "major regression" was, but some people might at the least disagree and could even be offended at such a suggestion.


----------



## table1349 (May 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not convinced that we, as a people, are "smarter" now than we were thousands of years ago.  We have higher technology  sure, but we have only "discovered" in the last few centuries things that our ancestors "knew" 5 thousand plus years ago. This is especially true concerning mathematics and cosmology.
> ...


8 Ways Technology Makes You Stupid

I especailly like #5.

A couple more generations and "the old days" will be yesterday to them.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


there is that distinct possibility that we we aren't progressing at all but regressing. The thought has occurred to me.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

if you take technology out of the equation (you know the plastic gizmos with chips), i am not sure we really have become more evolved.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

A giant cataclysmic event could solve the problem. thanks heavens we invented nuclear warheads to help the cause (you know, because we are smart and stuff). So just in case nature doesn't take care of it, we always got that big red button...


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

i used to watch that series "life without people".   It looked quite peaceful.


----------



## table1349 (May 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> if you take technology out of the equation (you know the plastic gizmos with chips), i am not sure we really have become more evolved.


Well skinning game is easier using a sharp steel knife rather than a stone knife.  Come to think of it though, I do prefer my cermaic knife for cutting vegtables and fruits up.  Stays sharp for ever.  Just don't drop the thing on a hard surface or it scatters all over in little pieces.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > if you take technology out of the equation (you know the plastic gizmos with chips), i am not sure we really have become more evolved.
> ...


It seems the more advanced we (maybe ) become.  The more depressed the human race becomes. Or it could just be the world has a addiction to anti-depressants i can't tell which.
The happiest people always seem to be the dumbest ones though.


----------



## table1349 (May 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> A giant cataclysmic event could solve the problem. thanks heavens we invented nuclear warheads to help the cause (you know, because we are smart and stuff). So just in case nature doesn't take care of it, we always got that big red button...


Sadly in a sense you are correct.  If you look back at history some of the greatest progressions were made during and after times of great strife.  A nuclear device no.   But an encompassing world war could, 1 take the striain off the planet in terms of population at this point and 2 revive the world economies.  Both things unfortunately happen after humans fight large encompassing wars that kill mass amounts of other humans. 

Just so you are clear on this, I am not  advocating for World War III.  Just pointing out one of the consequences that seem to occur during and after times of great deadly conflict.


----------



## tirediron (May 26, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> I'm not convinced that we, as a people, are "smarter" now than we were thousands of years ago.  We have higher technology  sure, but we have only "discovered" in the last few centuries things that our ancestors "knew" 5 thousand plus years ago. This is especially true concerning mathematics and cosmology.
> 
> There are plenty of things we have a much better understanding of now, but I think at some point in our history, humanity suffered a major regression and we have been playing catch up ever since


 And leave us not forget that today's fact is often tomorrow's fallacy.  In the 15th century, scientists "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe.  How many "facts" that we "know" today will be found to be utter hogwash in 50, 100 or 500 years into the future?


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > A giant cataclysmic event could solve the problem. thanks heavens we invented nuclear warheads to help the cause (you know, because we are smart and stuff). So just in case nature doesn't take care of it, we always got that big red button...
> ...


well since science discovered all kinds of ways to save out lives, it had to come up with a equal amount of ways to kill us. Other wise balance would never be achieved. It is all part of the master plan. Since we evaded natural selection we had to make up our own version.
My major disappointment with science though. Is since they managed to figure out the world is round Not much has happened. They realized we are on a big floating rock. And the furthest they managed to get us is to another floating rock even smaller and worse than the one we are on.  At the end of the day, we are still just on a floating rock with no where to go. They just figured out it was round.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

tirediron said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not convinced that we, as a people, are "smarter" now than we were thousands of years ago.  We have higher technology  sure, but we have only "discovered" in the last few centuries things that our ancestors "knew" 5 thousand plus years ago. This is especially true concerning mathematics and cosmology.
> ...


well, they change their minds.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > A giant cataclysmic event could solve the problem. thanks heavens we invented nuclear warheads to help the cause (you know, because we are smart and stuff). So just in case nature doesn't take care of it, we always got that big red button...
> ...


Give it time, give it time. Put a overpopulation of animals in a cage with limited resources and supply the end result is never really good. That is kinda where we are going.


----------



## bribrius (May 26, 2015)

Not saying you should go out and build noahs ark, because it would be more of a drought that caused the red button solution....
Maybe a volcanic eruption, anything for a natural cataclysmic event. Then the earth with laugh at us. That is usually when people suddenly become religious too. when they see everything around them falling apart. Suddenly religion seems like a good idea.


----------



## Forkie (May 27, 2015)

bribrius said:


> if you take technology out of the equation (you know the plastic gizmos with chips), i am not sure we really have become more evolved.



The phrase "more evolved" has no meaning. It suggests evolution is linear and that one species is more evolved than another. They aren't.


----------



## Designer (May 27, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I am not  advocating for World War III.



We've surpassed that.  

WWIII was the Cold War, and this supposed "War on Terror" is WWIV.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (May 28, 2015)

Ok, off topic

If human beings can save the Earth from an, dino killer size asteroid, would all past environmental misdeeds be forgiven hypothetically and we can start again with a clean slate, as a whack from one of though`s things would virtually wipe out all life on Earth, a kind of rebalancing of the scales.

John.


----------



## table1349 (May 28, 2015)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> Ok, off topic
> 
> If human beings can save the Earth from an, dino killer size asteroid, would all past environmental misdeeds be forgiven hypothetically and we can start again with a clean slate, as a whack from one of though`s things would virtually wipe out all life on Earth, a kind of rebalancing of the scales.
> 
> John.


You sound like an asteroid hit would be a bad thing.  Humans are just the tetse fly on ass of the earth spreading their form of infection.


----------



## table1349 (May 28, 2015)

Designer said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not  advocating for World War III.
> ...


Not even close.  The Cold war was for the most part a war of words.  It came no where near the 67 to 70 million people killed world wide driectly attributable to WWII.  Hell even if you throw in Korea and Vietnam that encompassed only about 3.5 to 4 million people total over a span of 45 years.  

The "War on Terror" is a Bushishm.  Unless you have participated in a true war you can't appreciate the full magnitude of the whole thing.


----------

