An excellent even debate on the universe having a purpose with Richard Dawkins

Damian Mahadevan · January 17, 2011

JemyM said:
Still deep into these creationist sites I see.

A couple of quotes comes to mind, the first from a former Swedish arch-bishop;
"They (creationists) deny Gods gift of reason"

The second from a christian podcast;
"Creationism is the most corruptive force there is within Christianity, because each person you convince that it's either God or evolution, is one step closer to atheism. This because as soon as you open your mind, take the class, read the books, see the evidence and understand the discipline, you believe you have to give up God".

Finally;
"The creationist God is an assimilation between the God of deceit and the God of gaps."

No that was my own thoughts on the matter. If they werent i would reference them.

JemyM · January 17, 2011

DArtagnan said:
Really, Jemy, all I'm suggesting is that you acknowledge my childlike observation.

The constant interruptions of someone trying to teach ABC is annoying at best.

DArtagnan said:
It doesn't matter what words you use, be it "strong" or "almost proven" - it's impossible to actually know.

If you know the scientific method and the basics of naturalism you know why this is a straw man. You are insinuating a position that isn't held and accuse a position for lack of awareness, when that position that is rooted in precisely that awareness which you insinuate it lacks.

DArtagnan said:
We have data that we can perceive and possibly comprehend and that's what we work with. It COULD potentially be 100% factually valid - but it could also be completely and utterly false - because there is something major we can't perceive yet (or ever), or a "thoroughly tested fact" that turned out not to be thoroughly tested, because OOPS an unknown rested somewhere and no one thought about it - even with all the respected scientists at work.

Again, this is already acknowledged both within science and epistemology. You are pushing a straw man.

DArtagnan said:
I'm a great supporter of the "scientific method" - but I'm not such a big fan of pretending to be absolutly certain of something that's impossible to be certain of.

Then you also know that facts aren't binary, they go from 0-100% supported where 100% is just a theoretical max that cannot be achieved,

DArtagnan said:
So, it's more how you approach it and how you communicate it that I think is unhealthy. It's just not a great way to stay open and prepared for when things are not what they seem.

It's you who are changing the topic into metatheory, which is a different topic. I have already established in this thread long before you popped up that naturalism is the comparison between empirical data to empirical data. The ontological nature of empirical data is not necessary to acknowledge if that is all you do. Kinda like math, which rely on math, logic that rely on logic, empirical data is a structure within itself, which means you can compare empirical data with empirical data without pondering the nature of empirical data.

2+3 is thus 5, even if none of those numbers exist outside the human mind.

DArtagnan said:
Oh, and YOU understand the limits of perception and comprehension? I don't think anyone does - but I must congratulate you if that's a "fact"

I am four years ahead of you on this topic.

DArtagnan · January 17, 2011

JemyM said:
The constant interruptions of someone trying to teach ABC is annoying at best.

Interrupt what?

I was under the impression that this was an open debate, and that people can contribute freely regarding the overall topic. If you think of my contribution as an "interruption" - then I advise you to simply ignore it. That would seem to be an appropriate response.

We agree that what I'm talking about is very basic, which is why I wonder why you don't respect it as a basic tool in your understanding.

If you know the scientific method and the basics of naturalism you know why this is a straw man. You are insinuating a position that isn't held and accuse a position for lack of awareness, when that position that is rooted in precisely that awareness which you insinuate it lacks.

I generally don't insinuate. I'm responding to your exact wording: "strongly verified BELIEFS".

You believe, you don't know. ABC, so why do you keep forgetting it?

Again, this is already acknowledged both within science and epistemology. You are pushing a straw man.

I'm not talking about what's acknowledged within science - but what you seem not to acknowledge.

Then you also know that facts aren't binary, they go from 0-100% supported where 100% is just a theoretical max that cannot be achieved,

My point exactly. So why do you keep talking about people being wrong or telling lies?

Science can't prove them wrong, by your own admission - it's just a set of strongly verified beliefs.

Basically, you believe those that don't agree with you to be wrong - but you can't know.

Basic, ABC, and obvious. But sometimes it helps to appear to actually know this basic stuff.

I think you understand this basic concept, but I doubt your mind is comfortable with it. I actually think you forget, on a daily basis, that you don't know anything - and as useless as that realisation might seem - I think you of all people would really benefit from being reminded.

It's you who are changing the topic into metatheory, which is a different topic. I have already established in this thread long before you popped up that naturalism is the comparison between empirical data to empirical data. The ontological nature of empirical data is not necessary to acknowledge if that is all you do. Kinda like math, which rely on math, logic that rely on logic, empirical data is a structure within itself, which means you can compare empirical data with empirical data without pondering the nature of empirical data.

Yes, you can establish a theory with a set of rules that match our ability to perceive and comprehend. That's all you can do. ABC, again

You can even prove a theory within that set of rules - but when you're talking about facts, you should consider your wording. It has yet to be proven that any fact is an objective reality. As it turns out, many of the theories thought to be proven throughout time - weren't.

I am four years ahead of you on this topic.

How so?

What do you mean, exactly?

Have you considered not obsessing about who's "ahead", and just talking about the matter at hand?

If you want to be "superior" - so be it. I'm much more interested in what you have to say about the topic, than what you think yourself to be compared to someone you don't know.

Pladio · January 17, 2011

DArtagnan said:
I'm a great supporter of the "scientific method" - but I'm not such a big fan of pretending to be absolutly certain of something that's impossible to be certain of.

The difference is that the scientific method self-corrects, while most religious institutions are in denial about many, many things.

The scientific method is the best we have to go with up until now.
Example: Diplomacy might not be the best system of government, but most people who know about history and the different forms of government agree that a diplomatic system is the best system we have now.
If someone can come up with a realistic implementation of a new government system, then a lot of people would at least review and consider it.

A monarch would on the other hand not care about any other form of government system as they would lose their power if they do so.

The religious method is similar to the monarch in that if they accept some data that they previously considered wrong then they have to admit they were wrong and by doing so, show that their religion is not all-knowing.

The scientific method does not work that way, if some new data comes in they it would change itself. It might take 20 odd years to get reviewed and proven by many people, but it will normally self-correct.

Religion never will as it keeps to its ideas. A lot of religious people call themselves Guardians of their belief. In other words, they would not budge, no matter how much they will be shown they are in the wrong.

DArtagnan · January 17, 2011

Pladio said:
The difference is that the scientific method self-corrects, while most religious institutions are in denial about many, many things.

Yes, that's why I'm a supporter of the method. I think it's better in many ways or rather more useful

My problem is that the human mind and our nature is to overlook things, because our brain needs to understand. So, whenever something can't be understood immediately - we tend to "invent" things to make it understandable. I know that science is all about thoroughly testing - and with many theories, we have hundreds if not thousands of competent scientists, but we can never test for things we can't truly understand. The typical scenario with a new theory, is that one or a few come up with it - and establish the core of the theory. So even when hundreds of people become involved with the testing and the verification, they tend to work with the core theory and I don't always feel certain that the core is questioned after the initial stages. Human beings working together towards a common goal can become suprisingly blind to even the most obvious flaws, and we often see theories deconstructed by a neutral party or by someone with an opposing interest.

That's why it's extremely dangerous - in my opinion - to act on what's essentially nothing but a working theory as if it WASN'T a working theory.

I'm not saying we shouldn't act, and of course we should - I'm just saying it's never irrelevant to remember the uncertainties - even when we feel most certain. Because everything CAN change at a moments notice.

The scientific method is the best we have to go with up until now.

As long as what I'm saying is known AND remembered, I agree. It seems to me that people can be fully aware of their own ignorance, and yet insist that they know for sure.

Puzzling.

Example: Diplomacy might not be the best system of government, but most people who know about history and the different forms of government agree that a diplomatic system is the best system we have now.
If someone can come up with a realistic implementation of a new government system, then a lot of people would at least review and consider it.

I assume you mean Democracy. I think Democracy is horrible. It's better than nothing, I suppose - but it's most definitely not the best we could have. The system itself is not the problem, though, it's our nature and our ignorance. But the system can still be improved A LOT - if only we learned to work together.

But that's a topic for another day

The religious method is similar to the monarch in that if they accept some data that they previously considered wrong then they have to admit they were wrong and by doing so, show that their religion is not all-knowing.

The scientific method does not work that way, if some new data comes in they it would change itself. It might take 20 odd years to get reviewed and proven by many people, but it will normally self-correct.

Religion never will as it keeps to its ideas. A lot of religious people call themselves Guardians of their belief. In other words, they would not budge, no matter how much they will be shown they are in the wrong.

Yes, but you have to understand that the two are so very different. You're comparing two completely different approaches to perceiving our world - and because religion doesn't "self-correct" it doesn't mean there can be no God.

Let's take Christianity. Like, the Bible, for instance.

When atheists oppose the scriptures - they focus on the interpretation of other people, and the Bible (scriptures, whatever) is conceivably just another interpretation. It doesn't mean that what inspired the Bible never happened, and it's worth considering that man is equally unable to perceive or comprehend God - as he is the world through the scientific method.

It's like arguing against something, based on the inability of the proponent to articulate or understand it.

It's easy to "win" the argument using established rules of logic, math, and other perception/comprehension tools - because you're arguing with people - not the actual potential existence.

Now, as a weak agnostic - I have no idea what happened to make the world, but I have a lot of thoughts on the matter. It's fully possible that some entity beyond my understanding and comprehension is behind it, or that we exist in some computer simulation, or that everything started with the Big Bang. They're all just about equally possible to me, and none of them make sense to me.

That's why I think it's pretty useless to work against the possibilities, and just focus on your own theories.

JemyM · January 17, 2011

DArtagnan said:
Interrupt what?

The topic.

DArtagnan said:
I was under the impression that this was an open debate, and that people can contribute freely regarding the overall topic. If you think of my contribution as an "interruption" - then I advise you to simply ignore it. That would seem to be an appropriate response.

Your posts and current arguments can be summarized as "let's discuss this instead".

DArtagnan said:
We agree that what I'm talking about is very basic, which is why I wonder why you don't respect it as a basic tool in your understanding.

Because it's like discussing concrete in the basement when the topic was about decorating the living room. While essential for the mere existence of the livingroom, it's irrelevant in the ongoing topic.

DArtagnan said:
I generally don't insinuate. I'm responding to your exact wording: "strongly verified BELIEFS".

You believe, you don't know. ABC, so why do you keep forgetting it?

Your obsessive need of hearing it stated is in your head.

DArtagnan said:
My point exactly. So why do you keep talking about people being wrong or telling lies?
Science can't prove them wrong, by your own admission - it's just a set of strongly verified beliefs.

All language is based on a human perspective. The word "wrong" included.

You are making a false presumption, and that is that a true position is necessary to overthrow a false position. While things can't be proven, they can be falsified. A falsified position is a "wrong" position. Consciously supporting a such position is a lie. A wrong position or a lie, is much easier to establish than a well-supported, verified belief (fact).

To be wrong your position only need to contradict empirical data. Yet again, empirical data can be discussed within it's own realm without the ontological discussion of the nature of that data. One could say that words such as "wrong", "true" and "fact" is as correct to use within that realm, as words such as addition, subtraction and multiplication is correct within math.

DArtagnan said:
Basically, you believe those that don't agree with you to be wrong - but you can't know.

Strawman.

DArtagnan said:
I think you understand this basic concept, but I doubt your mind is comfortable with it. I actually think you forget, on a daily basis, that you don't know anything - and as useless as that realisation might seem - I think you of all people would really benefit from being reminded.

Dunning-Kruger. You clearly haven't received any philosophical training on epistemology and your overconfidence is the product of that mental state. You are not aware of the greater philosophical questions, either because you didn't understand them, fell out from philosophy early on or didn't bother.

Like I said, most of your arguments put forth here mirrors my own 4 years ago. You are too smart for your own good, which actually blocks you from moving on. A bit of humility would help you in the long run.

DArtagnan said:
You can even prove a theory within that set of rules - but when you're talking about facts, you should consider your wording. It has yet to be proven that any fact is an objective reality. As it turns out, many of the theories thought to be proven throughout time - weren't.

Again, you are proposing a challenge that isn't, since the ontological discussion on whether or not there is an objective reality is insignificant in a system in which empirical data relies on empirical data. The nature of empirical data to establish a empirical fact is as insignificant as the nature of the number 9 is insignificant to establish a mathematical fact regarding that number.

DArtagnan said:
Have you considered not obsessing about who's "ahead", and just talking about the matter at hand?
If you want to be "superior" - so be it. I'm much more interested in what you have to say about the topic, than what you think yourself to be compared to someone you don't know.

I didn't say I was superior, I only said I am four years ahead of you on this topic. Calling me superior based on the accumulation of experience within this narrow realm is based on your own interpretion.

DArtagnan · January 17, 2011

JemyM said:
The topic.

The topic as you decide it should be?

You do understand that people can approach a debate from different angles?

Your posts and current arguments can be summarized as "let's discuss this instead".

Actually, my posts can be summarized as: "here are my thoughts on the matter."

Because it's like discussing concrete in the basement when the topic was about decorating the living room. While essential for the mere existence of the livingroom, it's irrelevant in the ongoing topic.

I thought it was pretty relevant to the topic, actually.

Your obsessive need of hearing it stated is in your head.

Could you rephrase that?

All language is based on a human perspective. The word "wrong" included.

Yes, but your perspective SEEMS to be that wrong means objectively wrong - that's your whole approach. If it's not, then you sure have a "funny" way of acknowledging basic uncertainties.

You are making a false presumption, and that is that a true position is necessary to overthrow a false position. While things can't be proven, they can be falsified. A falsified position is a "wrong" position. Consciously supporting a such position is a lie. A wrong position or a lie, is much easier to establish than a well-supported, verified belief (fact).

No, they can only be falsified within our limited capacity to perceive and comprehend. As in, only false based on our rules that - by their very nature - are limited by ourselves.

You apparently think you can call people liars when they don't follow those rules, which is what I'm calling unhealthy.

To be wrong your position only need to contradict empirical data. Yet again, empirical data can be discussed within it's own realm without the ontological discussion of the nature of that data. One could say that words such as "wrong", "true" and "fact" is as correct to use within that realm, as words such as addition, subtraction and multiplication is correct within math.

Correct, yes, but also not wholesome.

Strawman.

Icecream.

Dunning-Kruger. You clearly haven't received any philosophical training on epistemology and your overconfidence is the product of that mental state. You are not aware of the greater philosophical questions, either because you didn't understand them, fell out from philosophy early on or didn't bother.

Baseless claims used as empty posturing. Boring and not worth our time.

Like I said, most of your arguments put forth here mirrors my own 4 years ago. You are too smart for your own good, which actually blocks you from moving on. A bit of humility would help you in the long run.

Humility is as useless as arrogance. I started doubting the scientific method in my early teens - and my world broke down in most ways when I was 20 and suffered an anxiety disorder. That these arguments are "old" to you, doesn't mean they are new to me. They are relevant, still.

Again, you are proposing a challenge that isn't, since the ontological discussion on whether or not there is an objective reality is insignificant in a system in which empirical data relies on empirical data. The nature of empirical data to establish a empirical fact is as insignificant as the nature of the number 9 is insignificant to establish a mathematical fact regarding that number.

I know what science is, but you seem confused about why I don't think it's the same as certainty. You keep acting like uncertain knowledge is certain - and all you really have to do to convince me that you fully understand, is to acknowledge this uncertainty with your general disposition.

Not that convincing me is important, but at least you wouldn't have to be interrupted all the time

I didn't say I was superior, I only said I am four years ahead of you on this topic. Calling me superior based on the accumulation of experience within this narrow realm is based on your own interpretion.

As I said, the concept is meaningless to me. I can't measure superiority even with all the "facts" at hand. You have next to no facts about me, and as such - your estimation of my knowledge about this is pretty worthless, if slightly amusing

Pladio · January 17, 2011

DArtagnan said:
My problem is that the human mind and our nature is to overlook things, because our brain needs to understand. So, whenever something can't be understood immediately - we tend to "invent" things to make it understandable. I know that science is all about thoroughly testing - and with many theories, we have hundreds if not thousands of competent scientists, but we can never test for things we can't truly understand. The typical scenario with a new theory, is that one or a few come up with it - and establish the core of the theory. So even when hundreds of people become involved with the testing and the verification, they tend to work with the core theory and I don't always feel certain that the core is questioned after the initial stages. Human beings working together towards a common goal can become suprisingly blind to even the most obvious flaws, and we often see theories deconstructed by a neutral party or by someone with an opposing interest.

But that's the point of the scientific method. In new fields of study you would rarely find a full consensus of people. You would almost always have an opposing party and if that opposing party can show that the first party is incorrect then that claim would be gone.

That's why it's extremely dangerous - in my opinion - to act on what's essentially nothing but a working theory as if it WASN'T a working theory.

But that's what everyone is doing, except that the working theory has been shown to work even if only experimentally for hundreds of years.
The theory of Fourier which allows us to use everything we are using now has STILL not been fully proven to work, yet it is generally regarded as true, for the simple reason that if it didn't work then today we would not have: computers, communication systems, cell phones, cds and dvds…

It is a possibility that someone would find something wrong with it or some unknown parameter that was missing, but until they do, the theory of the Fourier Series is the working theory and it is valid to say that it is true.

I'm not saying we shouldn't act, and of course we should - I'm just saying it's never irrelevant to remember the uncertainties - even when we feel most certain. Because everything CAN change at a moments notice.

As long as what I'm saying is known AND remembered, I agree. It seems to me that people can be fully aware of their own ignorance, and yet insist that they know for sure.

Puzzling.

That's not what's happening however. People know things can change and people adapt. If things change then they change. That's perfectly acceptable, but that's no reason to not work on what's currently established.

I assume you mean Democracy. I think Democracy is horrible. It's better than nothing, I suppose - but it's most definitely not the best we could have. The system itself is not the problem, though, it's our nature and our ignorance. But the system can still be improved A LOT - if only we learned to work together.

But that's a topic for another day

It's the best people can do right now. And I didn't want to say Democracy as there are no two the same in this world currently.

Yes, but you have to understand that the two are so very different. You're comparing two completely different approaches to perceiving our world - and because religion doesn't "self-correct" it doesn't mean there can be no God.

Of course not, but from our current view, God, as is in the Bible, Quran, Torah, Holy Scriptures of [insert religion]… is very unlikely to exist.

Let's take Greek Polytheism: According to them the Gods live on Mount Olympus. However, none of our satellite imagery show any beings like those depicted in Greek temples on Mount Olympus.

So, from a scientific perspective, those Gods do not exist.

Let's take Christianity. Like, the Bible, for instance.

When atheists oppose the scriptures - they focus on the interpretation of other people, and the Bible (scriptures, whatever) is conceivably just another interpretation. It doesn't mean that what inspired the Bible never happened, and it's worth considering that man is equally unable to perceive or comprehend God - as he is the world through the scientific method.

It's like arguing against something, based on the inability of the proponent to articulate or understand it.

It's easy to "win" the argument using established rules of logic, match, and other perception/comprehension tools - because you're arguing with people - not the actual potential existence.

Few real scientist would argue the 'potential' existence of a supernatural being! Most scientists call themselves agnostic. I remember PJ's argument of him being Ignostic.

However, most scientists say that with the current data, a being like that is very unlikely.

Now, as a weak agnostic - I have no idea what happened to make the world, but I have a lot of thoughts on the matter. It's fully possible that some entity beyond my understanding and comprehension is behind it, or that we exist in some computer simulation, or that everything started with the Big Bang. They're all just about equally possible to me, and none of them make sense to me.

That's why I think it's pretty useless to work against the possibilities, and just focus on your own theories.

However, for now most of the data seem to indicate that the world is expanding and as such the most simple-minded people can realize that this means that a very possible explanation is that everything used to be together at some point and so the Big Bang is the most plausible theory with the current data.

You could very well ignore all the data in the world and say that 2+2 is 5342574, but then there's no reason for you to be using this forum as you can also believe that you are living on the Truman show and you are being watched by the 24345 intergalactic races in reality tv …

So, for now I'm going to stick with the scientific method, until you can show me that I'm living on Earth TV, alright ?

hishadow · January 17, 2011

Pladio said:
However, for now most of the data seem to indicate that the world is expanding and as such the most simple-minded people can realize that this means that a very possible explanation is that everything used to be together at some point and so the Big Bang is the most plausible theory with the current data.

It's a bit ironic that the man who gave Big Bang it's name, objected to it because it could be used to "validate" the act of creation by a God. He instead stuck to his steady-state "ethernal" universe model. Recent discoveries, like redshift of light from galaxies and the microwave background radiation, is strong evidence of the Big Bang theory. Research today though, like multiverse, string theory, or the holographic priniple, is returning to the "ethernal" model. Problem is, evidence will most likely lie outside the "timespace reality" of our universe. There are harsh critics of this line of research, but the irony of it is that's where the scientific method has lead us.

DArtagnan · January 17, 2011

Pladio said:
But that's the point of the scientific method. In new fields of study you would rarely find a full consensus of people. You would almost always have an opposing party and if that opposing party can show that the first party is incorrect then that claim would be gone.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about

That's why I don't think being absolutely certain is a good approach - because you can't be.

I'm not discounting the use of science at all, I'm saying it's important to remember how flawed it is - even if it's arguably the "best" method.

But that's what everyone is doing, except that the working theory has been shown to work even if only experimentally for hundreds of years.
The theory of Fourier which allows us to use everything we are using now has STILL not been fully proven to work, yet it is generally regarded as true, for the simple reason that if it didn't work then today we would not have: computers, communication systems, cell phones, cds and dvds…

You must not meet many people in your daily life

My life is littered with people saying "We know this for a fact today, there's nothing to argue - and we should therefore do this or that."

Constantly.

It is a possibility that someone would find something wrong with it or some unknown parameter that was missing, but until they do, the theory of the Fourier Series is the working theory and it is valid to say that it is true.

No, I don't think it's valid. But it's not important what words you use, rather that you understand that what you think of as true today, might not be true tomorrow. It's this basic ABC, as Jemy calls it, that I see even the smartest scientists forget all the time. They push it aside in their hunger for proving something that can actually not be proven.

That's not what's happening however. People know things can change and people adapt. If things change then they change. That's perfectly acceptable, but that's no reason to not work on what's currently established.

Again, you must not meet many people. A LOT of people don't go around with these thoughts in their daily lives. They go around expecting everything to be as they've been told by teachers, or as they've been reading about in books.

So many people don't want to face change or the simple fact that they don't know anything really. Sure, they know when you confront them or ask them - but they don't act, consciously, as if they know.

It's the best people can do right now. And I didn't want to say Democracy as there are no two the same in this world currently.

Then you have me confused, but it's not really relevant here.

Of course not, but from our current view, God, as is in the Bible, Quran, Torah, Holy Scriptures of [insert religion]… is very unlikely to exist.

From the scientific point of view, I agree. But to consider it the only valid point of view is not what I would suggest.

The scientific point of view, as you say, already knows that the rules and systems we've established are ever-changing. So why all the energy spent on disproving something based on ever-changing data?

Let's take Greek Polytheism: According to them the Gods live on Mount Olympus. However, none of our satellite imagery show any beings like those depicted in Greek temples on Mount Olympus.

So, from a scientific perspective, those Gods do not exist.

Yes, because we trust satellite imagery, and we think we can know something based on that alone. At the same time, they could be invisible and science can even support that eventuality. That's actually a good example.

It's preposterous to say they could be invisible, but they COULD be

Few real scientist would argue the 'potential' existence of a supernatural being! Most scientists call themselves agnostic. I remember PJ's argument of him being Ignostic.

However, most scientists say that with the current data, a being like that is very unlikely.

Yes, with the current data. But the current data is obviously limited. I suspect EXTREMELY limited, but that's not based on anything substantial.

However, for now most of the data seem to indicate that the world is expanding and as such the most simple-minded people can realize that this means that a very possible explanation is that everything used to be together at some point and so the Big Bang is the most plausible theory with the current data.

Seem to indicate that it's expanding… Yes. Can you not hear how insignificant that information is?

I think Big Bang is incredibly far fetched, personally, and "something from nothing" makes absolutely zero sense to me. Even if it was true, imagine how many things might not be "true" today, if something could indeed arise from nothing.

You could very well ignore all the data in the world and say that 2+2 is 5342574, but then there's no reason for you to be using this forum as you can also believe that you are living on the Truman show and you are being watched by the 24345 intergalactic races in reality tv …

But I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anything. That's what my point is.

So, for now I'm going to stick with the scientific method, until you can show me that I'm living on Earth TV, alright ?

Feel free to stick with whatever method seems right to you

I like to keep an open mind, personally.

hishadow · January 17, 2011

DArtagnan said:
I think Big Bang is incredibly far fetched, personally, and "something from nothing" makes absolutely zero sense to me. Even if it was true, imagine how many things might not be "true" today, if something could indeed arise from nothing.

In quantum physics there's something called virtual particles. They're spontaniously created and destroyed out of "nothingness". Their effect is even measured in experiments.

It's at a different scale than what you're refering to though.

DArtagnan · January 17, 2011

hishadow said:
In quantum physics there's something called virtual particles. They're spontaniously created and destroyed out of "nothingness". Their effect is even measured in experiments.

Nothingness, being that which we can't perceive, measure, or comprehend at this time, sure.

Are you saying it's absolutely impossible that what doesn't seem to be anything, could potentially be something - and that we simply can't detect it - or its potentially unknown effects - using anything we have available today?

This is another excellent example of what I'm talking about.

People are not saying: "As far as we can perceive, these particles are virtual and are created from nothing."

They're saying "They're created from nothing. Period."

Obviously, real scientists are aware that it's just another theory - but so many are speaking as if it was a fact.

hishadow · January 17, 2011

DArtagnan said:
Obviously, real scientists are aware that it's just another theory - but so many are speaking as if it was a fact.

You should read it as a jest at you.

I'm sure virtual particles has it's critics, but atleast it's a consistent explanation for the effects it describes. What I was getting at was your quote "something from nothing makes absolutely zero sense to me". It asserts that the universe is ethernal and never had a beginning. What I submit might be weak evidence, but there seems to be a "forward-moving" property of our universe. We can trace back how our solar system came to be, we can trace back how our universe came to be, we can trace back how particles of our universe came to be, etc. That to me seems to be strong evidence of an evolving universe. Having an ethernal universe with these properties I would argue "make lesser sense".

zadokAllen · January 17, 2011

DArtagnan said:
That's why I don't think being absolutely certain is a good approach - because you can't be.
I'm not discounting the use of science at all, I'm saying it's important to remember how flawed it is - even if it's arguably the "best" method.

Science is not "flawed" - at least not in the way you seem to be implying here. The whole scientific method is about claiming something and then testing it until it`s proven true or false. And even when it`s found to be "true" - some new discovery can come along and change the whole outlook on "the truth". Real scientists are never "absolutely certain" about something, because you never know whats around the corner.

It`s also not the "best" method - it`s the only one. You`re using it yourself, keeping an "open mind".

My life is littered with people saying "We know this for a fact today, there's nothing to argue - and we should therefore do this or that."

These are simplifications, of course, (unless someone MEANS it) thats because human communication systems are so limited. And, you wrote it on a computer etc= hence we do know something for a fact at this point of time, even if it might change later on.

No, I don't think it's valid. But it's not important what words you use, rather that you understand that what you think of as true today, might not be true tomorrow. It's this basic ABC, as Jemy calls it, that I see even the smartest scientists forget all the time. They push it aside in their hunger for proving something that can actually not be proven.

Assuming, in a giant mental shortcut, that Fourier theory is in fact responsible for computers, how on earth is it invalid? If these daft scientists forget stuff all the time, where did this computer come from?

From the scientific point of view, I agree. But to consider it the only valid point of view is not what I would suggest.

The scientific point of view, as you say, already knows that the rules and systems we've established are ever-changing. So why all the energy spent on disproving something based on ever-changing data?

In a way, yes. God, as written up in assorted "holy books" does not exist, since it`s a figment of human imagination. God, as in entity/event/something-incomprehensible-yet might on the other hand exist. If it does, it would be explainable by science or logic - perhaps not as we know it today, maybe some totally new kind of science/logic. That still doesn`t equal religious "magic".

It's preposterous to say they could be invisible, but they COULD be

Agree, but that was an easy one

Yes, with the current data. But the current data is obviously limited. I suspect EXTREMELY limited, but that's not based on anything substantial.

Thats also true. Hence I don`t consider any scientist who opposes this view a "real" one. Although, I can still respect his scientific work.

Seem to indicate that it's expanding… Yes. Can you not hear how insignificant that information is?

I think Big Bang is incredibly far fetched, personally, and "something from nothing" makes absolutely zero sense to me. Even if it was true, imagine how many things might not be "true" today, if something could indeed arise from nothing.

Insignificant? Now, now

We`re getting back to this 'computer" that doesn`t have right to exist, and yet you`re typing on it.

Big Bang is "only" a theory. There are other ones too. Thing is, the evidence for it is massive, hence it`s a favourite theory at this point of time.

"something from nothing" is another mental shortcut. In fact it`s math/mental gymnastics so complicated that neither you, me, or probably 95% of human population can grasp it...which is why Hawking is considered a "genius".
Ok, again, it`s "only" a theory. But from a guy, who can barely move, and yet he PREDICTED black hole radiation(for example) -which was later proven to exists. So, I pay attention to what he says. Even if I hate the idea myself too, and even though- obviously - he might be wrong.

But I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anything. That's what my point is . [...]

I like to keep an open mind, personally.

No no- you were saying a few things, in this last paragraph. Keeping an open mind is not about refuting some rock solid evidence.

JemyM · January 17, 2011

Two videos comes to mind; Dunning-Kruger + Open-Mindedness.

And on the same topic Critical Thinking.

DArtagnan · January 17, 2011

hishadow said:
You should read it as a jest at you. I'm sure virtual particles has it's critics, but atleast it's a consistent explanation for the effects it describes. What I was getting at was your quote "something from nothing makes absolutely zero sense to me". It asserts that the universe is ethernal and never had a beginning. What I submit might be weak evidence, but there seems to be a "forward-moving" property of our universe. We can trace back how our solar system came to be, we can trace back how our universe came to be, we can trace back how particles of our universe came to be, etc. That to me seems to be strong evidence of an evolving universe. Having an ethernal universe with these properties I would argue "make lesser sense".

No, I'm not saying the universe is eternal.

I have no idea, really. I'm saying my mind doesn't work well with the concept of "something from nothing" - and it insists that there's more to it than that. Then again, my mind can't fathom eternity either - and I have problems accepting much of what I hear about quantum theory or mechanics - and the relation between space and time. Too much theory, and not enough demonstrable elements for my mind.

It's not unlikely that I'm simply too stupid to grasp these things, but every time I hear scientists/teachers talk about it - they fail to put it into words, in a way that I can really accept. So, in my mind it's just as likely that it simply CAN'T be explained to someone like myself - and whether it's me being stupid or them claiming to know what they can't know, I couldn't say.

Someone might suggest that maybe I don't WANT to understand, but if that's the case - I'm not aware of the resistance myself.

Science is not "flawed" - at least not in the way you seem to be implying here. The whole scientific method is about claiming something and then testing it until it`s proven true or false. And even when it`s found to be "true" - some new discovery can come along and change the whole outlook on "the truth". Real scientists are never "absolutely certain" about something, because you never know whats around the corner.

It`s also not the "best" method - it`s the only one. You`re using it yourself, keeping an open mind".

It's flawed exactly in the way I'm suggesting.

The flaw is inevitable, whether it's realised or not.

It's obviously not the only method, because we have religion.

My starting point is generally the human mind and how it works, based on personal observation and experience. I don't trust - on faith - in information that doesn't make sense to me, and I have a natural scepticism towards all groups that stand to gain something from whatever they claim, and I find human beings generally incapable of being objective - even when they insist upon being exactly that.

This doesn't mean that people/scientists can't be right, and I'm fully open towards that possibility. It just means it has to make sense to me before I will claim to believe it - and even then, I'll always have to accept that it can be entirely false.

So, I use the scientific method in a very private way - and I can't really claim to have tested my conclusions thoroughly in a way that science would accept.

I generally accept "science fact" when it makes sense to me, and where I have no reason to doubt it. In pretty much all other cases, it's just theory and I'm not invested in whether it's true or false.

These are simplifications, of course, (unless someone MEANS it) thats because human communication systems are so limited. And, you wrote it on a computer etc= hence we do know something for a fact at this point of time, even if it might change later on.

Hmm?

Assuming, in a giant mental shortcut, that Fourier theory is in fact responsible for computers, how on earth is it invalid? If these daft scientists forget stuff all the time, where did this computer come from?

I think you have to explain that to me. Are you saying that because the computer can be proven to exist within our ability to perceive and comprehend, then it must be valid to say it exists? It's valid within that set of rules - naturally.

In a way, yes. God, as written up in assorted "holy books" does not exist, since it`s a figment of human imagination. God, as in entity/event/something-incomprehensible-yet might on the other hand exist. If it does, it would be explainable by science or logic - perhaps not as we know it today, maybe some totally new kind of science/logic. That still doesn`t equal religious "magic".

We can't know the first part, but it seems we largely agree on this one. Our scientific method and the rules we've chosen to use in our pursuit of knowledge aren't compatible with a god as it's described. But our rules can be incomplete.

Thats also true. Hence I don`t consider any scientist who opposes this view a "real" one. Although, I can still respect his scientific work.

Well, sure, why not.

Insignificant? Now, now We`re getting back to this 'computer" that doesn`t have right to exist, and yet you`re typing on it.

Big Bang is "only" a theory. There are other ones too. Thing is, the evidence for it is massive, hence it`s a favourite theory at this point of time.

You've lost me.

Are you saying the evidence related to a computer existing and the Big Bang theory is of a similar magnitude?

Personally, I don't think there's anything approaching "massive evidence" except in a way that means nothing to me. It's just one possible explanation that can partially explain the origin of our universe, and fit within our current set of rules. The fact that there are more than one theory throws the whole thing into a bad light, really.

I don't need evidence to prove my computer exists, but I'm willing to entertain the theory that it doesn't

"something from nothing" is another mental shortcut. In fact it`s math/mental gymnastics so complicated that neither you, me, or probably 95% of human population can grasp it…which is why Hawking is considered a "genius".
Ok, again, it`s "only" a theory. But from a guy, who can barely move, and yet he PREDICTED black hole radiation(for example) -which was later proven to exists. So, I pay attention to what he says. Even if I hate the idea myself too, and even though- obviously - he might be wrong.

I've never met the guy. I also don't believe in the concept of a "genius". I believe that if someone spends all his resources pursuing something, he's likely to come up with more than those who don't

No no- you were saying a few things, in this last paragraph. Keeping an open mind is not about refuting some rock solid evidence.

Rock solid within a potentially very limited capacity for perception

zadokAllen · January 17, 2011

One-page-long replies? Why, it must be science vs religion thread

Ok, one more…

It's flawed exactly in the way I'm suggesting.
The flaw is inevitable, whether it's realised or not.
It's obviously not the only method, because we have religion.

Again, it`s not flawed- how can it be, since at it`s very core it acknowledges that any theory might be wrong, unless tested gazillion times, and even then it can adapt on basis of new evidence. I`d say science thrives on flaws & errors.

Religion as a method? Emotional wishful thinking vs logic? No, sir.

My starting point is generally the human mind and how it works, based on personal observation and experience. I don't trust - on faith - in information that doesn't make sense to me,

Personal observation is commendable, but in this field, not enough. Please read-a-lot about latest neuroscience, and how your own brain is basically a lying, biased, unreliable git. It is unpleasant, but thats….uh, that`s science, actually

and I have a natural scepticism towards all groups that stand to gain something from whatever they claim, and I find human beings generally incapable of being objective - even when they insist upon being exactly that.

Me too, but most of the "real" scientists do it for reasons of pure knowledge pursuit. And even if not, peer review system assures that any BS is picked on by others.

I generally accept "science fact" when it makes sense to me, and where I have no reason to doubt it. In pretty much all other cases, it's just theory and I'm not invested in whether it's true or false.

Very handy, this

Again, your biased brain at work here…

Hmm?

Saying that for example "anything from nothing" is a (very) simplified explanation - to fully grasp some concepts you really need to study the field etc, science is THAT complicated these days. Followed by…

I think you have to explain that to me. Are you saying that because the computer can be proven to exist within our ability to perceive and comprehend, then it must be valid to say it exists? It's valid within that set of rules - naturally.

Of course it does. And, of course, it`s within this set of rules that surround us - otherwise it`s philosophy and totally different thread.

You've lost me.

Are you saying the evidence related to a computer existing and the Big Bang theory is of a similar magnitude?

Not really, but hell, why not. To start with, it`s not about computer "existing" - but the fact it exists thanx to lots of science being done earlier. Some of it totally unconnected - it`s not like some guys sat down and said- "now we`re making a computer". Lots of previous inventions and research came together on this one. And others.

Similarly current studies of cosmology might result in some other inventions, completely unrelated to Big Bang or space altogether. I lack examples, coz i`m lame like that, but they do exist.

Personally, I don't think there's anything approaching "massive evidence" except in a way that means nothing to me.

It`s like, the basis of this whole argument. You`re skeptical, bout this or that - commendable. But these guys & their method have been right about so many things- in fact, everything that surrounds you, and perhaps the fact that you`re alive too (I mean life expectancy `n all that) - and yet you refuse to listen to them on this.

And unless you`re math whizz/physicist or such - it will be hard to comprehend. Obviously. Thats why they using simplified language when communicating with us.

It's just one possible explanation that can partially explain the origin of our universe, and fit within our current set of rules. The fact that there are more than one theory throws the whole thing into a bad light, really.

How so? It`s the best thing about it- if there was only one theory, now that would be suspicious and biased.
I don`t like Big Bang myself. Also I know that sometimes they sound like its cast in stone. But science folk are humans too and so prone to all the same failings like the rest of us. Therefore they check on each other constantly….

I've never met the guy. I also don't believe in the concept of a "genius". I believe that if someone spends all his resources pursuing something, he's likely to come up with more than those who don't

That`s …childish

Unfortunately, IQ - much maligned - exists and plays a role in this kind of setups.

Rock solid within a potentially very limited capacity for perception

Ah, philosophy, again

But unless we discover this other dimensions and such (I believe it quite possible) let`s just stick with this given set of rules we have now…the ones that allow your bloody computer to work

DArtagnan · January 17, 2011

zadokAllen said:
One-page-long replies? Why, it must be science vs religion thread

Ok, one more…

Yes, it takes a bit of time

Again, it`s not flawed- how can it be, since at it`s very core it acknowledges that any theory might be wrong, unless tested gazillion times, and even then it can adapt on basis of new evidence. I`d say science thrives on flaws & errors.

Acknowledging the flaw doesn't remove it

You can never know the tests are wholesome or that the conclusion is wholesome. So, it's flawed - much like most things are flawed when relating to human enterprise.

Religion as a method? Emotional wishful thinking vs logic? No, sir.

Saying no to it doesn't remove the method, though.

Personal observation is commendable, but in this field, not enough. Please read-a-lot about latest neuroscience, and how your own brain is basically a lying, biased, unreliable git. It is unpleasant, but thats….uh, that`s science, actually

I just told you I'm not big on science

But I'm ok with my brain being a shitty tool - and I've come to accept the flaws. It works for me, and I'm not out to prove myself right to others.

Me too, but most of the "real" scientists do it for reasons of pure knowledge pursuit. And even if not, peer review system assures that any BS is picked on by others.

Pure knowledge pursuit?

Nah, most people have an agenda - whether they realise it or not. The people with opposing views can have it too. The thing is you can never really know whether the person behind the theory has one or not. So I rely mostly on myself and my experiences.

Very handy, this Again, your biased brain at work here…

Very likely…

Saying that for example "anything from nothing" is a (very) simplified explanation - to fully grasp some concepts you really need to study the field etc, science is THAT complicated these days. Followed by…

Yes yes, these things are always too complicated for even the experts to explain

Of course it does. And, of course, it`s within this set of rules that surround us - otherwise it`s philosophy and totally different thread.

That surround us? No, that we've invented and perceived.

Not really, but hell, why not. To start with, it`s not about computer "existing" - but the fact it exists thanx to lots of science being done earlier. Some of it totally unconnected - it`s not like some guys sat down and said- "now we`re making a computer". Lots of previous inventions and research came together on this one. And others.

Yeah, and I bet a lot of people involved thought they had something which turned out differently.

Nothing wrong with great ideas, as long as you remain open about being wrong.

Similarly current studies of cosmology might result in some other inventions, completely unrelated to Big Bang or space altogether. I lack examples, coz i`m lame like that, but they do exist.

I don't doubt that they do.

It`s like, the basis of this whole argument. You`re skeptical, bout this or that - commendable. But these guys & their method have been right about so many things- in fact, everything that surrounds you, and perhaps the fact that you`re alive too (I mean life expectancy `n all that) - and yet you refuse to listen to them on this.

People have been wrong about this for so long as well. They keep adjusting and modifying everything to make it all fit together. Dark Matter ring a bell? Please. Working theories to fill up gaps.

Sure, the universe is likely expanding in such and such a way - but there's absolutely nothing useful about that observation, except as a theoretical starting point for the universe as we know it. That's ok, and I can accept the theory. But even if it turns out to be true, there's still nothing useful about it. What CAUSED it to happen and was the "nothing" before it really nothing, and is this universe alone, etc. etc.

The theory in itself is largely useless without more information.

And unless you`re math whizz/physicist or such - it will be hard to comprehend. Obviously. Thats why they using simplified language when communicating with us.

Do you realise how much this sounds like a person describing why God doesn't show himself?

How so? It`s the best thing about it- if there was only one theory, now that would be suspicious and biased.
I don`t like Big Bang myself. Also I know that sometimes they sound like its cast in stone. But science folk are humans too and so prone to all the same failings like the rest of us. Therefore they check on each other constantly….

The theory is fine - though obviously incomplete. It's the way it is used by people to explain the origin as if it was set in stone, as you put it.

Nothing wrong with theories as long as they're put forth as theories. Big Bang obviously is, but many are not.

So, it's not that I don't "like" Big Bang, but that I think it's FAR from wholesome or sufficient to explain much of anything. It's simply based on the observation of the universe expanding, and what a LOT of scientists have contributed with over the years - with a TON of constant modifications.

I honestly don't think we're ready to say much with certainty when it comes to the universe. Too much theory, as I put it.

The farther away something is, the easier it is to theorise about without being slapped in the face by reality.

That`s …childish Unfortunately, IQ - much maligned - exists and plays a role in this kind of setups.

IQ is a rigid measurement of mathematical and logical capacity, that says very little about the resources of any given person.

As I said, Hawking is most likely very smart in his own way. But since I haven't met him, and haven't really read much about his theories in-depth - I'm not going to accept he's a genius - simply because I don't believe in the concept. I've never met or heard of anyone I would describe like that.

Ah, philosophy, again But unless we discover this other dimensions and such (I believe it quite possible) let`s just stick with this given set of rules we have now…the ones that allow your bloody computer to work

I'm ok with working with our set of rules until we find others. Just as long as we all agree they're subject to change and any conclusion is subject to that

fatBastard() · January 17, 2011

JemyM said:
Two videos comes to mind; Dunning-Kruger + Open-Mindedness.

And on the same topic Critical Thinking.

I honestly laughed out loud when I watched the first 2 videos. :lol: They fit PERFECTLY with what DArtagnan has been doing in this thread.

Brilliant find JemyM. :biggrin:

DArtagnan · January 17, 2011

fatBastard() said:
I honestly laughed out loud when I watched the first 2 videos. :lol: They fit PERFECTLY with what DArtagnan has been doing in this thread.

Brilliant find JemyM.

Except I'm not claiming to believe anything supernatural or pseudo-scientific, or telling others to believe in it. I'm saying it's healthy not to lock down on facts that can't really be established.

But it's a nice demonstration of how a closed mind can't accept how opposition isn't easily defined. I'm placed in the completely wrong category, even when I'm flat-out demonstrating that I don't belong there - according to that pathetically simplistic approach to open or closed minds.

The videos themselves are probably soothing to those having trouble asserting themselves, but to me they work against their own point more than they support it. Especially the "dunning-kruger" video, which seemed more about lashing out based on hurt feelings and didn't have anything remotely insightful to say. Using the Bible to support something as "fact" - is about as far away from anything I could ever do, that I find it incredibly unsuitable in relation to myself.

One must be prepared for the reversal of the "dunning-kruger" experience at all times, though. When you're arguing with someone, and you keep "beating" his points - and you keep hearing the same things being said over and over - you must be prepared for the opposite side sharing this experience. If you hear yourself repeating the same argument over and over, then don't you think it's possible the opposing side is experiencing much the same thing? Does this mean both parties are suffering from this cognitive malfunction - or are we talking about things with a little bit more complexity than this juvenile and simplistic idea?

It's too dismissive of people to really believe they lack that understanding. Incredibly arrogant, I might add - but that's not important. Maybe in some few extreme cases, but you'd have to be absolutely ignorant of human nature to think that's the norm. Well… I hope so, anyway

In any case - the "test" in question was so unscientific and unrelated to the first story that I'm surprised even closed-minded smart people like Jemy would take it to heart. I mean, if it really takes a test like that to establish that people who're not particularly bright aren't too good with precise estimation of their own ability, it doesn't speak well of your insight in general.

To somehow take that shocking discovery and make it into a revelation about why you can't convince someone you're right, is pretty ridiculous - even for the utterly rigid and more than a little conceited

An excellent even debate on the universe having a purpose with Richard Dawkins

Keeper of the Watch

Okay, now roll sanity.

DArtagnan

Guest

Guardian of Nonsense

DArtagnan

Guest

Okay, now roll sanity.

DArtagnan

Guest

Guardian of Nonsense

Level N+1

DArtagnan

Guest

Level N+1

DArtagnan

Guest

Level N+1

Sentinel

Okay, now roll sanity.

DArtagnan

Guest

Sentinel

DArtagnan

Guest

Hello, I'm a Zombaholic

DArtagnan

Guest