defensive ploys, religion, science

[_Themis]

The fact is that you give the Church a free pass, and that you don't apply the same standards of evidence to it that you would to most other things.

Not to mention he continues to ignore the fact that other peoples "personal evidence" contradicts his own.

[_Morley]

Are you asking me to state my reasoning for why an internal combustion engine works?

Is this article acceptable considering your mainstream biased view on philosophy and life?

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry ... theory.htm


Just because something is accepted. then spun off of by people who think the evidence adds up, or adds up in their favor can still be wrong.

There was some show called "the planets" dated 1999, on this morning. These scientists devised a computer program which didn't explain the creation of Uranus and Neptune but explained the creation of all the other planets in theory. The computer program was backed by all these "scholarly physicists" the program explained some things but could not explain all things so the computer program or (Science) is flawed. The head of the University of Colorado's Science Department Admitted to this mistake.

If bunch of people were jumping off of a bridge You and Becalf would undoubtedly be in line to jump. Of course you'd be in back of the line considering robots follow their human counterparts.

Haters, you post links that have little connection to what you're arguing. (You did the same thing in the thread on homosexuality.) At other times, I've noticed that your discussions actually make sense. Apparently, this thread is this not one of those times.

Take care.

[_hatersinmyward]

What exactly am I arguing?

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry ... theory.htm

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Perhaps the basis for this disagreement is flawed?

[_beefcalf]

What exactly am I arguing?

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry ... theory.htm

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Perhaps the basis for this disagreement is flawed?

This post makes sense. If this is what you are arguing, then we are in complete agreement.

As to your previous assertion...

Not all science that is widely accepted and built upon isn't always based off of a correct method.

...I am still unsure what you are referencing. Can you provide an example?

(I am working off the assumption that your tortuous use of grammar was intended to mean something like this: "Not all science that is widely accepted (and built upon) is based off of a correct method." Please correct me if I am wrong.)

[Guest]

Seriously...

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

If a religious organization or group of scientists condone something without thinking it over, the idea/belief is then supported.

Let me alter the first paragraph slightly.

A group of scientists' theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with or without repeated testing. A theory is valid as long a group of scientists cannot find evidence to dispute it.

Cold fusion for example: Perhaps there is a flawed key basic element to the theory that most scientists agree on, and that is why nobody has gotten it to work. But people keep using that part of the theory without testing or understanding it.

The same thing can be done with a religious idea, the idea gets built upon and corrupted to the point the whole religion becomes an unfounded belief. Maybe the founder(s) of the religion were wrong in the first place, maybe they weren't.

That is what I am comparing.

Do you understand?

[_hatersinmyward]

(I am working off the assumption that your tortuous use of grammar was intended to mean something like this: "Not all science that is widely accepted (and built upon) is based off of a correct method." Please correct me if I am wrong.)

Yes, that is how i was attempting to phrase my statement. :)

[_beefcalf]

Seriously...

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

If a religious organization or group of scientists condone something without thinking it over, the idea/belief is then supported.

Let me alter the first paragraph slightly.

A group of scientists' theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with or without repeated testing. A theory is valid as long a group of scientists cannot find evidence to dispute it.

Cold fusion for example: Perhaps there is a flawed key basic element to the theory that most scientists agree on, and that is why nobody has gotten it to work. But people keep using that part of the theory without testing or understanding it.

The same thing can be done with a religious idea, the idea gets built upon and corrupted to the point the whole religion becomes an unfounded belief. Maybe the founder(s) of the religion were wrong in the first place, maybe they weren't.

That is what I am comparing.

Do you understand?

Hmmm...

In the case of cold-fusion, Fleischmann and Pons reported anomalous heat readings. At some point in their experiment (in which they were carefully measuring the amount of heat generated by electrolysis of heavy water in the presence of a palladium mesh), the began to detect a large excess of heat. F & P theorized that the only possible source of this extra heat would be the nuclear fusion of two deuterium atoms. The problem was that all the signatures one would expect from such a fusion, such as gamma rays or neutron flux, weren't seen or weren't seen in the correct amounts or at the correct energy levels.

F & P, in a rush to claim credit for what might be an enormously lucrative technology, bypassed the standard peer-review process and went straight to the press.

Of course, after they announced their methods, no other team of researchers were able to unequivocally reproduce their results, and, worse, no theory suggested by any researcher was even able to explain F & P's results within the bounds of known physical laws. In other words, not only could other researchers typically not reproduce the excess heat F & P saw, even if they had, there was no reason to believe that the cause of the excess heat was nuclear fusion, and lots of reasons to conclude it could not have been nuclear fusion.

Were these guys scientists? Yes.

Were they attempting to 'do science'? Yes.

Were their experiments and results discussed in scientific journals? Yes.

But... (and this is the important part) they did science wrong, making it NOT SCIENCE.

At the point that Fleischmann and Pons skipped peer-review, and at the point where they failed to properly formulate a hypothesis which fully accounted for the excess heat and neutron and gamma-ray signatures within a framework of known physical laws (or failed to present a coherent modification to those laws), they left science behind and entered the realm of hype and marketing.

So, you tell me. Do I understand?

[_beefcalf]

Oh, and by the way...

Fleischmann and Pons did their research on cold fusion in Utah.

More absolute proof that the church is false.

:-D

[_hatersinmyward]

Yes, you understand. thanks for making my non-science theory science :)

[_Ren]

Perhaps it is tautology, but do you see how we get to the infinite regression by asking these questions? Example:

How do I know I am thinking?
I am thinking about thinking, therefore I know I am thinking
But how do I know that I am thinking about thinking?
I am thinking about thinking about thinking...

Well, if it truly is a tautology, then I don't think it could also be an infinite regress at the same time... And I honestly don't see where any kind of infinite regress comes into play here.

You experience a thought (or thoughts) = you are thinking.
Done. As far as I can see...

My point here is how you define existence. If you define it as self-awareness only then sure, I am certain that I exist. And if it helps us move forward in the conversation, then we can use that definition of existence.

Given the example we were talking about, yeah - I do think self-awareness = certain I exist.
But cool - whether you truly buy that or not, if that could be considered a commonly accepted 'axiom' for now, I think that could well help in seeing how much further the idea could develop...

It is hard to fathom exactly how much we do not know. I could compare us to grains of sand on the beach of the universe, but that isn't small enough. I could compare us to quarks in the universe, but that isn't small enough either. In an infinite universe like many scientists believe we are a part of, there is no measurement to how small and naïve we really are.

I actually agree with you on this. I don't know of any way to make any kind of accurate assessment measuring what we know against what we don't know,
And even if we could, I'd bet on the ratio being thouroughly disappointing... ;)

That's part of it. It's definitely not the sole reason.

Well, ok. I'd be interested in knowing what your thinking is here.
Maybe you already went through all this in another thread - but I must have only skimmed that one...

but I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that human science has advanced to a point where we know these things don't exist.

Well, I would word it as 'We have no good reason to beleive they exist.' And since - as far as I'm concerned - that's the best you can do for any given proposal, that's good enough for me in practical terms. i.e. how I choose to live my life etc.

1) our definition of existence, and 2) our definition of "serious thinker" :)

Well yeah - fair enough :)

Hey - for the time being, see if you can find anybody - from serious thinker to bat-**** crazy - using any definition of 'existence' they want to try and get away with.

See what kind of quotes you can find - from anybody you like. I'm actually sure you could find 'some', but it will be interested to see how many...