evobulgarevo

the point is, the consequences of theories are important (that's how we get out predictions), but ultimately their fate is at the hands of experiment. we know that it's improbable for the "miracles" in the bible to have occurred; we know more than the authors of the bible who conceived of such events.

We don't know more than the authors on the recorded 'miracles', we know that they were recorded in the Bible as such. Meaning that they were witnessed as 'miracles'. Today there are things that are recorded that also go beyond our current grasp of the world.

A recent example would be those blue lights above LA. Shortly after that occurrence the mainstream put out an "official" and "logical" explanation of the whole thing.

So would it be logical to believe the mainstream because it has a firm grasp on public opinion and the explanations really do seem 'logical'?

Knowing that this is not a single occurrence of "weirdness" and knowing that there have been occurrences that have seemed "unusual" in history, wouldn't it be logical to remain open minded and discuss the possibility of both sides until there is firm and credible proof of either?

The word "improbable" appeals to logic, but it doesn't exemplify a certainty.

You need to define what you mean by real. Many parts of physics are abstractions, rather than real things — physics describes how things behave, not what they are.

 

Also, Einstein could have been completely logical in his thought process, but if he started from an invalid premise, his conclusion may be wrong. IOW, the correctness of the conclusion does not necessarily indicate the validity of the logic.

That's in part what I've already asked. What is real and how do scientists define real?

Einstein or otherwise, as far as I understand, all scientists look to start with a 'valid premise'. Or rather, a premise which they themselves believe to be valid. The point is that the field of science in itself is based on changing assertions and evolving conclusions.

So even though something may have been deemed 'logical' by past generations of scientists, it doesn't mean that it was accurate. But those past generations don't seem to realize it during their own lifetime. It seems that it is future generations that are able to point to conclusions that may have in fact been based on invalid premises and thus put forth new "more accurate" conclusions.

And the question is, effectively, is there any other evidence that corroborates the stories in the bible. There are many other characters mentioned in the Bible. We are fairly certain that some of these are real because there are a variety of other source which confirm what the Bible says.

 

That does not seem to be the case for Jesus so it is hard to confirm that he was a real person. Or, even, that he was a single person. There were many Messianic and gnostic (and therefore secretive) cults at the time and so the biblical stories could be an amalgam of several different people.

As you've pointed out, there is a "variety of sources which confirm what the Bible says". Though the Bible in itself is a compilation of sources.

The various sources compiled in the Bible point to Jesus as being a real person, and their accounts of him are quite similar. But that wasn't really the point as this goes into a mere discussion of historic events.

The point is, knowing that these historic events involved actions which go beyond the material world would it be logical to simply discuss them from a historical point of view?

Discussing Jesus and the miracles he performed simply from a historical perspective is like discussing the double slit experiment without looking into the behaviours of wave-particle duality.

that all depends on what exactly niels bohr was referring to when he said "everything," doesn't it?

 

also the claim that "we know that Jesus is recorded to have performed miracles" is contentious because the biblical story of jesus is not consistent with the supposed "historical" jesus.

 

and depending on your religious beliefs you may claim to "know" jesus didn't perform miracles, or performed different miracles than christians claim.

 

einstein showed that so called "spooky action at a distance" was a theoretical consequence of QM in the first place. that's why he rejected that interpretation of QM (he wanted a theory consistent with local realism). too bad entanglement is a measurable phenomena.

As far as I understand, Niels Bohr was referring to 'everything' that comprises the 'material' world, or rather that which we call material.

If you look at the Bible as a history book you would find that it talks about someone by the name of Jesus Christ who performed miracles.

In the Bible there are multiple examples of these miracles. The miracles, however, don't seem to align with our understanding of the material world.

Considering that one of the goals of the Bible is to make us aware of these non-material occurrences and considering that the material world may in fact be made up of things which cannot be said to be 'real', wouldn't a solely historical discussion of Jesus Christ be an incomplete discussion?

Einstein was being logical and logic lead him to an incomplete conclusion.

I'm pretty sure Bohr was referring to the fact that the molecules that make up everything are mostly nothing themselves. If it looks solid but is made up of basically nothing, is it real?

 

I think I could set up an imaginary situation where my rational thoughts might lead me to an irrational conclusion. But what would that show us beyond that it's possible?

'If it looks solid but is made up of basically nothing, is it real?', that's the question.

Regardless of the conclusions your rational thoughts may lead to, they are real. We don't even question that; we accept thoughts as real even though they're not solid.

If an architect thinks up a building, only the thoughts of that building would be real. If that building is built, however, then the building would also be real. But according to Niels Bohr, the building would be "made up of basically nothing".

So is the building as real as the thoughts?

Ignoring any discussion of whether Bohr is right or not (as off topic) one can assume the question means: was he as real as any other person.

We know the Bible is real and we also know that it references someone who was named Jesus Christ. The Bible is a book in which metaphors play a central role.

A metaphor can be interpreted literally, but that would defeat the purpose of the metaphor. The 'real' meaning would be misinterpreted.

Does logic limit us to literal interpretations? Knowing that interpreting a metaphor in a literal way would yield an inaccurate understanding, wouldn't it be irrational to do so?

Yup, good job there moderator. When senior members of this forum share your views and have a discussion among themselves, which revolves around me on a personal level to some degree, that's considered 'on-topic' to 'evolution and creation as one'. But when I engage in their commentary, then that's 'off-topic'.

The issue is that the forum has rules.

 

1) Be Civil. Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. Comments such as these:

 

"your average atheist is that he's quite sensitive...your average atheist is very presumptuous...your average atheist becomes blatantly arrogant...atheists derive conclusions primarily based on ego.."

 

Constitute a breach of that rule.

This quote exemplifies the sensitivity I'm talking about.

Furthermore:

4) The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

The same slurs are hasty generalizations and therefore logically fallacious.

You may not be trying to convince anyone of anything, but the way you are choosing to express your thoughts and opinions is inappropriate here.

Continued persistence in referring to this as an "argument" when I've already clarified that my posts are opinions based on personal experience shows that you see all discussions as scientific-discussions needing to follow a pre-determined structure.

This in itself is closed minded because according to you non-scientific interactions between humans are logical fallacies.

The thread posed a question. I answered based on my personal experience.

Well, I assume the question was intended literally (as implied by the use of the word "real"). In which case, the metaphors and symbolism in the Bible are of little use - except that they may provide some incidental detail as to the time, place, people, etc. that could be used to check for corroborative evidence.

 

After all, if the question was not meant literally, then presumably it would be "Was Jesus a person of symbolic importance?" To which the answer is a rather obvious yes.

 

Or is there another interpretation that I am missing?

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. – Niels Bohr"

We know that Jesus is recorded to have performed miracles, which some people claim weren't "real". As mentioned above, Niels Bohr tells us that everything we call "real" is made of things that cannot be regarded as "real".

Einstein was being logical when it comes to his work on QM yet NIST showed that 'spooky action at a distance' is a real thing.

Can our logical thoughts lead us to illogical conclusions?

I need to get one of those heavy-duty irony meters if I'm going to keep discussing things with you. You, who have little to no knowledge of science, are judging other people's knowledge of science?! How does that work?

Well sir, that works because I don't claim to know science nor do I claim to be smart. On the other hand, those with whom I've engaged in such discussions claim to know science and they also claim to be smart.

Most, if not all, of these discussions started because of God. But it has never been about showing how much I know of science or God.

Showing that they knew less than someone who knows little was enough.

When the stereotype is based on a culture, then you may have a point, when they are based on your prejudice, then you don’t.

Agreed.

Stereotypes often contain elements of truth, but when they are form the basis of expectation they can be thoroughly misleading.

 

A case in point: Scotsmen are said to mean. This is a blatant lie. It is simply a rumour we have spread in order to avoid having to buy a round.

Agreed.

To elaborate - it's easier to generate a stereotypical caricature of a group and shoot holes in your fabrication than actually address the attributes the group has in reality. It is also a lazy discussion style, logically fallacious, disingenuous and thoroughly unconvincing, however.

I've already addressed this in several replies and here's one more. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

The thread posed a question and I expressed an opinion based on personal experience.

To give another perspective, "reality" is the question you were actually asked. You should engage with that, rather than answering another (simpler and often caricatured) question because it is polite and constructive to do so on a discussion forum. To avoid doing so and engage in tactics such as strawman arguments is lazy, rude and intellectually dishonest. But you just carry on if it makes you happy...

It seems you think that being "polite and constructive" is of some importance. Regardless of how you choose to define my comments; how exactly is calling someone an idiot "constructive" simply for expressing an opinion in a forum section that is clearly labeled as 'General Philosophy'?

Isn't it closed minded to insult someone on a personal level simply for expressing an opinion?

Isn't the presumption that a discussion must strictly adhere to all that entails a scientific-discussion, even if that discussion is clearly labeled as general philosophy, closed minded in itself?

This is a discussion forum. So let's allow for the discussion to unfold.

In the Religion section there's a thread 'Was Jesus a real person?', though the Bible is a book of metaphors. So is it logical for us to interpret things literally when we know that symbolism plays a central role?

I also noticed that some content was removed:

Moderator Note

Posts hidden. This is a discussion of history, not personal testimony/preaching.

Is a discussion on Jesus a discussion of history? Or, would it be reasonable to take the symbolism into consideration?

Does logic get the better of us sometimes? Is there such a thing as being "too" logical?

As noted, the right place for this discussion is elsewhere. But it is worth noting that whenever this comes up those who give negative votes (a lot of people never do) are definite that they do not do it for simple disagreements. Instead them give them for irrational arguments, failing to support an argument, relying on logical and rhetorical fallacies, being evasive, repeating an argument after it has been shown to be wrong, and so on.

 

These are all characteristics of your posting style, so it is not surprising that you have earned a large number of negative votes.

 

There are many people that I disagree with but would never give a negative vote to because they do a competent job of arguing their case and providing support for it.

The negative points are due to difference in opinion. And some people on here seem to be quite sensitive. In the thread "Does being Atheist make you closed minded", I shared my observations based on my interactions with atheists. As I've already mentioned, in my experience, the vast majority of atheists seem to be closed minded.

The negative votes are great because they illustrate my point. No matter how "smart" or "scientific" you think you are, you're still susceptible to the human ego. And my "reputation" on this forum is what it is because we have a different opinion.

You keep talking about me providing support for my "arguments", but as I've already mentioned I don't see them as arguments. I'm not on here putting up a scientific conclusion for review by an anonymous committee, I'm simply sharing my opinion based on my interactions.

And the fact that you feel the need to see proof in order to believe that there may be 20 people in the world who are closed minded atheists is closed minded in itself.

Maybe. But science is a human enterprise. If you remove it too much from human drives and desires then no one will bother with it. Personal rivalries have, occasionally, been an important part of the development of science.

Science is a 'human enterprise', which had it's beginnings in the belief of God. In its foundation it was about learning and getting a better understanding of God. That was the point and that's why people 'bothered with it'.

As you mentioned, the point now, seems to be the satisfaction of 'human drives and desires' otherwise 'no one will bother with it'. So if that is the only reason people 'bother with' science, then why bother at all? You can satisfy 'human drives and desires' at your local strip club.

As many others have already clarified for you, no. It's simply not, and even if it were this is still all off-topic.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Internet+Troll&defid=4297114

I posted in the discussions "evolution and creation as one" and "Does being an Atheist make you closed minded". My comments were on-topic within those discussions, they were just not in support of how you see the world.

And if my comments in this current thread are off-topic, they're merely in reply to you.

Anonymity won't help you at all without a good grasp of the basics of critical thinking. Even if nobody knows who you are, a lack of basic science skills is going to give you away.

But would detaching reputation, self interest, and personal incentive from science help propel the evolution of scientific though?

That's complete reverse what you proposed in thread title....

Quoting out of context tends to have that effect.

Judgment in scientific sense, is confrontation of theory with experimental physics.. If theory can't pass it, it's rejected.

Judging the theory is a must. Judging the person is counter productive.

Some people are interested in science just because "to get Nobel price", like couple our young scienceforums.net members.. Mentioned it couple times.. They would ignore physics if you would tell them that nobody will know their name

This is kind of the point. Shouldn't science be completely detached from personal interest? Shouldn't our collective evolution take precedence over an award for personal achievement?

If you don't know how to confirm some knowledge, you should make thread about it asking for details. It will be given, I am sure.

Ok, so provide examples in support of my assertions in the original thread.

Which discoveries are kept in secret?

I guess an example would be Nikola Tesla's work. There are claims that he made some monumental discoveries, which were held back from the public for the personal gain of a select few.

If quality is what you're after, consider checking the reputation system instead. While clearly not flawless, it does offer a quick estimate / meaningful proxy for the overall value of a members contributions to the site here. It also generally goes up over time, unless of course the poster is being trollish and/or unable to add value to discussions even after receiving specific feedback on how to do so. To that end, we see that Strange is currently 1013. I'm 3581. You... well, you're currently at negative 19.

The reputation system; a measure of value or conformity? That "negative 19" is due to difference of opinion, because my posts were in support of the less popular view.

Either way, comments about the reputation system and user ranks based on post count are off-topic and belong in the user feedback forum.

That's an evasive statement and this is a philosophical discussion. My comments were inline with the idea of this thread. The idea being that reputation plays a notable part in the scientific community.

It's also a lot easier to combat a strawman than reality.

What is reality and why must we engage in combat with it?

Be careful, that kind of closed-mindedness might get you mistaken for an atheist.

I think the statement "stereotypes are often accurate" is not an inaccurate statement.

Alright, let me put out a general statement here for everyone who is willing to read it.

All of my statements regarding atheists pertain to the atheists I've either had discussions with or attempted to have discussions with on the matter of God. And in my experience, the vast majority of those atheists have turned out to be arrogant, self-centered, with little to no knowledge of science.

I don't know the exact number of discussions, because some have been mere attempts that never really unfolded into discussions. I would estimate the number of discussions that were more than just 'attempted discussions' at around 20 with different people.

In all fairness, from what I could tell, most of those atheists were conformists to a notion that "atheism is the cool new thing". I highly doubt that they put any thought of their own into their reasoning for identifying as 'atheist'.

I don't see how these sweeping generalizations are any less erroneous, offensive and useless than sweeping characterizations about any other group, e.g. "Jews are generally stingy", "Muslims tend to be violent", "your average Christian is a bigot" etc.

Stereotypes are often accurate.

I also think too many people misconstrue disagreement with ridicule. If I show where you're wrong, I'm doing my job as a scientist, not making fun of you.

If people are given a fair platform where they can express their opinions freely, it's all fair game. Showing or proving that I'm wrong on a particular assertion is constructive as long as I'm allowed to present a counter argument.

Dismissing an assertion on a personal basis, hampering discussion, and censorship, on the other hand, are not constructive.

I'm talking in general, not necessarily anything to do with our earlier interactions.

That said, science should always be looking for ways to remove subjective factors, ways that we influence our hypotheses with our own biases. Anonymity could help in many situations, removing personal factors that could unfairly influence us.

Agreed.

Here's what I think you're really asking about. You have some ideas but don't feel they're being given a fair assessment by scientists on this site. You feel you're being dismissed, and others are over-critical.

Nothing wrong with being overly critical. Though there's a fine line when excessive non-constructive criticism can become an impediment to discussion.

As long as I can express my opinions and thoughts without censorship I'm good. I'm not on here looking for approval or emotional support. Though I do enjoy open discussions, or debates if you will. And these only seem to get interesting when there's difference in opinion. So, thanks.

And to be honest, the trigger was quite possibly the negative "reputation" points. Maybe if the terminology was different, I wouldn't have posted this. Though this has been something I've been thinking about.

I didn't insult anyone directly, though I was called an idiot. I don't think I've spammed the threads, and I'd say I've been posting on topic.. so the negative "reputation" points seem to be due to the difference in opinion. Is a difference in opinion a bad thing?

Personally, I don't have a science reputation to maintain. I'm not a scientist. Do you see my point?

But be honest. You didn't study much science in school, so you aren't really familiar with the methodology scientists use to assess an idea. It has to start with a good foundation, based on knowledge we already have and trust. If you showed up with bridge plans that didn't have enough support, you'd expect an engineer to tell you, right? So many people come here like you with an idea that seems so right to you, only to have a scientist tell you you forgot something very basic, so you're idea needs work. But what you hear is "YOU'RE WRONG", and it hurts because you've decided they're being dismissive.

It's true, I didn't study much science in school. In fact, I didn't like science very much. I only recently got interested in science, and find it quite interesting.

The quote above says that a good foundation is needed, which I agree with. But as I've mentioned in an earlier reply, scientists are human. My point is that we should all remain open minded.

For example, if observations show that the speed of light appears to change over a period of several decades, it's probably worth exploring why a constant is changing rather than fudging the numbers to match what was understood to be a constant value.

The quote above illustrates the presumptuousness of human nature, scientist or not. I didn't come here to prove a point. All of my posts thus far have been mostly an expression of opinion in hopes of getting to know you better. For example, I now know that there are a couple of people on here that are probably not worth the time an extensive discussion would take.

Science flourishes when as many people as possible share their knowledge and work towards explaining our universe in the most trustworthy way. But most ideas are wrong, and trained scientists learn to focus resources on ideas that have a chance at being right. And that training forces them to be especially critical about getting the basics right.

Surely you can recognize that science is evolving. Surely you can acknowledge that scientific ideas that were once accepted as truth are no longer accepted because new findings have come about. The point here is that some seem to think that science has already figured absolutely everything out and that's it. We already know everything. Good job science, there's nothing more that you can teach us. That's silly.

Hey, I thought Strange had made it quite clear that none of this was enough to make him "upset". I hope you aren't trying to flame him for a reaction.

Words can convey emotions even if the ego doesn't allow you to admit to them.

That's a rather open-ended objection. If three people ridicule an advancement, but thousands accept it, is that really a problem? I don't see how anonymity helps. The fact that some advancements faced ridicule doesn't address the fact that they were still accepted. What constitutes ridicule, anyway? Is that simple criticism, or calls for more detail? (according to some people who have posted here, that's unforgivable ridicule) How many proposals were "ridiculed" that turned out to be nonsense? Maybe it's just a reasonable part of the vetting process.

As the saying goes, the truth eventually comes out. Is it possible, however, to propel scientific progress from the point of ridicule to the point of acceptance for ideas that we are unable to comprehend but future generations might?

If a reputable scientist discovers a truth that he thinks is accurate, but he doesn't feel like it's 100%, or maybe he just can't explain it fully at a particular point in time, would that scientist put his name on a theory that could damage a reputation that took a lifetime to build?

ranks are simply an automated indicator of post number.

So he got the rank of "Genius" thanks to the sheer volume of posts, as opposed to the quality of their content.

The refereeing of papers is usually done by anonymous referees. Though often you can have a reasonable idea who they are.

 

Double anonymity could be an idea, but the referees will be able to make good guesses of who the authors are based on style, the references and so on.

 

Maybe making it all open could be another idea...

I like openness. Let everything be visible to all. Have people educated and encourage them to think for themselves. Encourage them to question, without judgement.

The reason why I'm wondering if science can benefit from anonymity is because scientists are human. And they too are susceptible to ego.

@evobulgarevo It would help if you give some modern examples of what you are talking about. That way Strange and you can really start a dialogue.

There was a time when we thought the idea of flight was ludicrous. There was a time when we thought the universe was static.

Would anonymity help propel ideas that contradict the commonly accepted 'truths'?

And there's no sense in a dialogue with that individual, at least not yet, because he's still salty.

The more mankind discovers about nature, life and technology the more we benefit from it, that is what I think…

Agreed. As long as discoveries are open to all, at all times, always and not kept on the down low for the personal gain of a select few.

 

For example?

 

 

For example?

 

 

Until you have established that there is a problem, it seems unnecessary to invent solutions.

I know we have a difference in opinion, I know my opinions upset you.. and I'm ok with that. But if you can't think of a single technological advancement which was ridiculed when it was originally proposed, then I don't know how you're ranked as a "Genius".

History shows that some important technological advancements and scientific discoveries were ridiculed as 'insanity' when originally proposed.

Today we know better. And yet, we sill ridicule.

So, can science benefit from anonymity?

 

I'd really prefer that more people listen. It's a dying art.

 

In case you didn't get the hint, you ignored my fire/theater example. Do you honestly support my right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded space as part of freedom of speech?

 

I don't think you've thought this through. Should I be able to tell lies about you in the newspapers? Free speech!

 

Even America has laws that prohibit my creating potentials for harm like that.

I see your point. But then who determines who can say what and when?

That's an amazing thing to say! "I'm going to ignore filter those arguments I don't like because I want to be constructive and open-minded".

What arguments? I'm merely sharing my personal observations based on the atheists I've talked to.

Nor do I. It is a discussion. As part of a rational discussion on a science forum, I (and others) are asking you to support what you say.

So proving to you that there are, let's say 20 people, who identify as atheists and are arrogant, self-centered, with little to no knowledge of science would make you feel better?

Or, am I to understand that identifying as an 'atheist' is some sort of accolade that means one can't possibly be arrogant, self-centered, or lack knowledge of science in your opinion?

The words you used were

" I think that any respectable scientist would need to be well versed in theology."

which I paraphrased as "You have said that science should study theology"

It's not clear to me why you are saying there's a difference.

 

On the other hand, there's a lot of difference between either version and " I said that science and religion go hand-in-hand and can compliment each other. "

which is what you now claim

(though the best you can come up with for evidence is a logical fallacy- an appeal to authority).

 

Do you realise how pointless it is to try to move the goalposts when they are posted here and everyone can see exactly what you said?

First and foremost, I apologize for any confusion that my posts may have caused. Please read carefully because this is now my attempt to clarify that confusion.

[the point] If a respectable scientist engages in a discussion that involves God it would be reasonable for that scientist to be well versed in God. [/the point]

See now, that's just ridiculous. A worthless emotional platitude that sounds great in your heart, but if you'd let it into your head long enough to filter out the crazy, you'd see that you don't want people yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or any number of situations where allowing people to say anything they want, at all times, always, is inconsistent with public safety and personal privacy.

Alright, thanks? Many atheists I've attempted discussions with see censorship as a "tool" to help support their statements. Though I guess it's not their fault for lacking the ability to express their claims because for the most part they're merely conformists to the idea that "atheism is the cool new thing". I've found that the vast majority have little to no knowledge of science.

And I firmly believe that everyone should be free to speak their mind whenever they feel like it. If you think otherwise, well then, that is un-American of you sir.

This kind of bold assertion with

"Science-minded" or not, everyone should have the right to speak freely whenever they want.

A block of compressed snot just shot up my nose and out my mouth.

Cool.

And it seems you are being censored in the very important sense that you are not being censored at all.

Let there be free speech for all, at all times, always.

I'm not out to prove that your average atheist is someone who is arrogant, self-centered, and has little knowledge of science. Proving that to you is of no benefit. I don't feel the need to feed my ego with some sort of affirmation that I've "defeated you in an argument". I don't even see this as an argument.

What some on this forum call "dancing" or "dodging questions" is what I call filtering those with whom I think a constructive discussion can be had. And constructive discussions tend to require open mindedness.