B. John Jones

Those men are dead.

So why do you think other people have the time to conduct your experiments for you instead? You're making the claim, you're the one who has to back it up.

Why do ask questions I've answered in the very things you've read about which you're asking? That's why I don't have time for these experiments. My logic is right. Is yours?

I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about Scripture. The writings of Judeo-Christian prophets and apostles. The Bible.

I've answered that in the link. But for amusement, I'll answer again. I'm not a scientist. I see the hand of God clearly in nature. I don't have time to conduct these experiments. People are dying. I try to give people in the science community the benefit of the doubt and trust that they're worth their salt. I'm finding that you tend to skirt around a lot. That's what authentic Christians have to deal with I guess. It's not science. It's human nature.

 

 

That doesn't appear to be consistent with anything in reality.

 

Formal science might be characterised as, "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass. Let me compare it with others and see if I can come up with an explanation. Now let me see if this explanation works for other leaves. It seems to so I'll publish it and see if others can reproduce my results and either shoot it down or extend it."

What's the difference between this, and "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass. Let me compare it with others and see if I can come up with an explanation. This comparison seems to betray the hidden truth of Scripture. Now let me see if this explanation works for other leaves. It seems to so I'll publish it and see if others can reproduce my results and either shoot it down or extend it."

And what things have been proven that are "contrary" to truth?

Natural selection. You guys don't even have the guts to test a simple scenario: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95395-ridiculous-reproductive-principle-a-testable-hypothesis/

The Milky Way galaxy?

Funny. (and I get heat for relating "metaphysicis," in seriousness, to nature)

By 'stone cold' I meant dispassionate; emotions should not cloud the interpretation of any results. I think your OP is based on aesthetically pleasing, warm and fuzzy with freedom to make stuff up out of thin air vs unaesthetically pleasing, closed shop and closed-minded. Your OP gives a choice that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

There you go. Logic always works.

"The problem with modern science" huh?

"Modern science," not science.

Yes, I have have a beef with modern science, because it uses bad logic to "prove" things contrary to truth.

As long as you have a model you agree on to test by, you can prove what you want. That's how logic works. It can be good logic or bad. If it seems, or you can present it, logically, you can do whatever you want. I hate bad logic. I love right logic--logos, good word.

 

I do understand that human behavior and belief is quite complex and really no less so than that of nature and animals. I also realize that human behavior is a product of will rather than merely happenstance and it's quite easy to see the hand of another power in it and in the behavior of nature itself. This merely isn't my point. My point is that every event of even the tiniest scale has a virtually infinite number of outcomes and each of these outcomes would govern everything in reality given sufficient time. They affect everything in reality even in the briefest possible time.

 

Nothing can be pre-ordained even in a deterministic universe and we know that the universe is no clock-work.

I mostly agree, with one primary diversion. That is where you say, that "every event of even the tiniest scale has a virtually infinite number of outcomes and each of these outcomes would govern everything in reality given sufficient time."

Take an event of the proportion of a nuclear holocaust (realizing you require a mere tear of a fingernail), without consideration of the ripple effects beyond the intial reduction and destruction of peoples and masses of matter, for the sake of controlling the discussion. Later, we'll permit a single effect as by one ripple.

Now, we've lost part of a continent and numerous populations. The quality of air has probably been made much inferior. Human health world-wide has denegrated. I'm sure much more can be said.

But the sun still rises and sets. The moon has his cycle. Stop there.

I don't doubt that you'll grasp to claim that this, "in sufficient time," is going to effect the moon and sun. But even if it did, neither the nuclear holocaust nor the tear in the fingernail, govern--anything--let alone everything. Regardless of the event's proportion, many things preceded, and many things follow. A thing in a chain of events governs nothing. Nature governs nothing. The moon governs. The sun governs over him. And there's a greater one who governs over them.

I'm asking for a measure, in your subjective opinion: on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being "steely cold but strongly unified", 10 being "warm with plenty of room for dissent," how would you describe the scientific community?

It's steely cold, strongly unified with plenty of room for dissent; yours is a false dichotomy.

Number one, if it is not "monolithic," then how is it that none have objected that it is also "steely cold," in it's unity?

 

 

There was objection. You are forgetting that this was identified as a false dichotomy, and taking that bit out of context in the response you were given. Remember the part about "plenty of room for dissent" also being included? i.e. both things are true?

 

Once the weight of evidence has accumulated, there is little dissent. Other than a few crackpots, physics is pretty unified on the core of classical physics, quantum theory and relativity. And yet there is lively discussion on what can't be tested, or tested yet, such as the interpretations of QM, and (as I said before) the parts that have little or no evidence. Similarly, is there much questioning among scientists that evolution happens, and that atoms and molecules are things that exist? I would say no — I don't see it. But away from the core, and you will see increasing amounts of disagreement.

 

Are you going to continue rephrasing your flawed premise and pretend that everybody hasn't objected to its flaws?

This is what I'm talking about. You guys always do this. You use bad logic to avoid or mask the thing at hand. It's clear that stringjunky was trying to claim a so-called false dichotomy due to my apparent assumption that there could not be dissent in unity. Whether he was correct or not, it has nothing to do with THIS question, that being that the scientific community, as stringjunky stated, is both "stone-cold and unified." The objection had nothing to do with that statement. You all agree on bad logic. That's the problem with modern science. You do it all the time. Bad logic and good logic are very logical. That's why it works for you.

B John Jones,

 

I am not interested in you talking about something I could not see for myself. If we are to talk about something, it should be something we both already have access to.

 

Regards, TAR

disarray,

 

 

Regards, TAR

Somebody once said, something like, "You say you have power. But you would have nothing if you hadn't gotten it." In other words, science's "contribution" is fictitious. The guy who invented the most advanced hand-plow wasn't a scientist, he was an inventor. Henry Ford later invented the tractor. We have the Wright Brothers, who invented aerodynamic flight machines. We even have space-craft now. These were inventions. Not science. It began when you were young and learned to count with your fingers. Now you're practically an engineer.

Legal decisions have little or nothing to do with science. They may, occasionally, use science to come up with a law or to assista court decision. But equally often they ignore the science for reasons of policy, public opinion, religion, or whatever.

 

Philosophy, of course, has an important role to play in decisions about the sort of topics you mention (but I suspect those are too specific to discuss in this thread).

 

 

"Murder" is not a scientific concept. So, no. But, of course, science can tell you when and whether a developing organism has various capabilities. Society can then use that information to decide what to do.

 

Some societies think it is OK to inflict pain or to kill their citizens (e.g. the USA has capital punishment). But that has nothing to do with science.

 

Only one of them. And that was Princeton University Press, which is not the same as Princeton University. That quotation came from a letter written by Einstein himself. The book was edited by friends and colleagues of Einstein. Don't you think they would have noticed if the publisher had changed the content? It sounds like you are inventing a conspiracy because you don't like the truth.

There's a whole field of science toward law--forensic science.

Murder is not a scientific concept, but it depends on the establishment of death, which is intimately scientifically determinable. Society can't decide anything. Social groups can.

Capital punishment and torture have many scientific implications.

No, I know the culture of Princeton University. As far as my conclusion, it's assumption, and somewhat hasty, but in my view likely.

Nye and Dawkins don't have to do with science?

There are several heavens. And yes, I would love to talk about them.

Okay, but people today are easy to sway. Look at how retail chains mark their "impulse items" up 300% or more of cost quite often at the check-out because they study their market. Very smart people can, and do, sway the masses, for example, Bill Nye, Dawkins, etc., through popular appeal, through massaging them, through entertaining them.

Have you ever named a child? It never felt like a fact to me. It was more like a random event in my experience, any name was possible. Until someone said I choose this one.

The naming of the child is ceremonial. Once it's decided his name is what it is, that's a fact.

There is dissent about things, until we find out the answer- by a method that we agree about.

To not realise that is to utterly fail to understand science to a point where it's hardly worth your while talking about it.

 

It's like me trying to discuss knitting patterns, for a Ferrari , in Chinese, with a pine tree.

 

Why are you even posting here?

Because, as you say, in science, majority holds sway. The minority either conforms by compulsion, exits, or a very few might have the guts to continue to speak their mind--that's me.

Science is not monolithic, as Strange has already explained, making your view a false dichotomy, as StringJunky has noted. Why are you ignoring this?

Number one, if it is not "monolithic," then how is it that none have objected that it is also "steely cold," in it's unity?

 

 

The source of those quotes was Einstein. And show he was not a Christian. If anything, he was a non-religious Jew.

 

And how does your personal opinion of Princeton affect their credibility?

Princeton published those "quotes." In my view, whenever they can distort truth, they do. I gave 2 prominent examples in the 2 classes of victims. Princeton is very pro-roevwade-dontaskdonttell.

But the topic is science breaking from philosophy. So, in the first example, the problem with the basis of Roe vs. Wade is that they base their decision on a woman's so-called right to do what she wants with her own body. If that's the basis of American law, then that law contradicts itself. Should a woman have the right to prostitute her body? See? She's the victim in both cases. If it's not the pimp exploiting her, it's the abortion clinics. So that's the correct legal precept. Scientifically, it is murder because the child has sensation. Not only that, the child has affection. There are replete quantities of imaging clearly demonstrating natural affections one twin toward the other in mothers' wombs. Science, and society today is the furthest thing from being objective.

It cannot be objective without unity with it's philosophic origin.

You are getting off topics -- Einstein's views on religion are not important in discussing the relation between philosophy and science. Einstein's views on philosophy maybe more interesting here: he does not seem to have been a great fan of metaphysics. But then one person's views do not define the 'view of science'.

Faith is an aspect of philosophy. Einstein was, yes, was, both Christian, and a great scientific thinker.

What are you talking about?

 

We should try to keep this on-topic. The topic is about the separation of philosophy and science ... which in my opinion is not very clear as there is a philosophy behind science. Please try to keep with the boundaries of your opening questions and comments.

This has to do with quotes cited whose source is Princeton. I think it's very fair to evaluate their legitimacy.

 

 

What scheme?

Listen, mothers who abort their children and men who compel them to do so are both victims. People who choose strange sexual ways are victims. But places like Princeton are far more demonic even than these folks' abusers.

I don't understand your point?

 

If it is something to do with individual choices based on aesthetic or moral judgments then science has far less to say.

 

It is possible to approach some questions of how populations or collections of people make judgments, but for individuals this is much harder. Basically, science says little about moral judgments, artistics judgments and how science can be used.

Please reread more carefully. It's simple stuff, really. Just take 5 minutes and think about it. I've edited out the typos.

Okay, but we do have cognitive science and neuroscience (etc), so you can think about your senses an awareness scientifically.

 

So far, there is no evidence of a soul -- at least in any common understanding of the word. People who beleive we have a soul are unable to define it carefully, let alone test it, and so there is little or no reason to actually beleive in the concept of a soul.

Nonsense. Whatever color or other patterns of motion and imagery we can detect in the brain, hormones, electrolytic whatever, there's a very obvious conclusion. Have you ever chosen something physically? Like to grab a donut, or cup of coffee or glass of water? Once you've chosen, you get up, and get what you want. Right? You choose first, then you move. Your limbs. Your muscles. Your hormones. Etc. Now, choice--is the cause, not the effect of those motions. Right? Otherwise, you wouldn't be aware, or at least you wouldn't have any choice in the matter. Right? Choice, you choose a glass of water, then you move. Mind, first, then--brain. Thought is the cause, imagery is the effect.

Absolutely. The one thing that can't be approached scientifically is where yours and my "thinker, feeler, sensor," goes, or becomes when our limbs and fibers return to the earth. Agreed?

I do not understand your question.

You had said, "Almost" everything can be analyzed scientifically. I agreed and defined your exception: Everything except one thing can be tested empirically. What becomes of yours or my sense of awareness, soul, if you will, following death, if you will. We know what happens to the limbs and fibers, to a degree.

I

 

 

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve - Einstein was pretty explicit in stating he was NOT a deist:

 

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It

 

 

I trust Princeton far less even than I would Machiavelli. At least he was one man, and admitted he was a liar. Princeton is many folk, and subtle about their scheme.

 

Not all of them. And even those who did believe in [a] god, didn't necessarily believe in your, nor in Jesus.

 

And what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

I don't know. We haven't decided yet what logic is.

Science is the discipline of objectively describing nature.

Endorsed.