Jump to content

Religions influence on Science


Handy andy

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

I just cant help questioning and looking for more believable theories.

Believability is a very poor basis for judging theories, because it is purely subjective and not necessarily related to the real world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎30‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 6:01 PM, Strange said:

I wish you would start a thread on this so that we can (a) find out WTF you are talking about and (b) discuss it sensibly (i.e. non religiously).

I did and moderation closed it down. There is enough for me to google on the subject without having to put up with your religious beliefs in space having no properties except dimensions.

Assuming the standard model is correct then dark matter must exist, here is a model to prove it. https://phys.org/news/2017-07-cosmologists-dark-dynamics.html . An alternative explanation would be if the standard model is incorrect then dark matter does not exist and what is being observed is a function of how space and gravity works. Quantum foam theory does not need dark matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_foam Which belief system is most likely correct?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

I did and moderation closed it down. 

!

Moderator Note

Perhaps you could learn from this, and then moderators would have less to do. (i.e. "moderation closed it down" because of rules being broken, not because of the subject matter)

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I've split several posts off because I wasn't joking around when I said 

"The question before us is "Is blind religious belief holding back Science?"

Discussion of that question is the only acceptable subject matter. Further off-topic posts will be removed."

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am currently not minded to start any more threads at the moment. Thanks anyway. 

The psychology of religious belief and how people refuse to accept or look at new ideas or views is very interesting, new scientific ideas can take years to be accepted. If someone believes in a thing, it is hard to get them to look at an alternative possibly more plausible explanation.

Opening a discussion with a person with a closed mind or religious outlook can be futile, but without discussion people don't learn, unless they learn by rote, without questioning anything, which is how religion manages to exist, and how some would teach science. If people questioned the contradictions in the quran or any other holy book they would soon wind up not believing in religion other than as a social tool used by ruling elite to control society.  A similar argument also stands in science, if a student questions a profs teachings, taught to the prof by people the prof believes, even if the student is right, the argument is going no where, especially if the prof follows scientific teachings like a religion rather than something to be continually questioned. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

new scientific ideas can take years to be accepted. If someone believes in a thing, it is hard to get them to look at an alternative possibly more plausible explanation.

And so it should be. We can't simply throw out everything whenever someone has a new idea. Once the evidence for a refinement is found, it can be accepted. 

"Refinement" describes more accurately how science works than "alternative". It is silly to call the current models, such as the standard model, wrong, since they are very effective in making predictions within their applicable area.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Handy andy said:

new scientific ideas can take years to be accepted. If someone believes in a thing, it is hard to get them to look at an alternative possibly more plausible explanation.

Scientists every day, even as we speak/type, are putting current accepted theories to the test:  GR in relatively recent times, have confirmed a long held prediction in the presence of gravitational radiation, and BHs: It could have very well invalidated the theory also.

6 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Opening a discussion with a person with a closed mind or religious outlook can be futile, 

 

Religion is based on faith alone.People use it as a crutch. Science and scientific theories  are based on observational and experimental data.

6 hours ago, Handy andy said:

  A similar argument also stands in science, if a student questions a profs teachings, taught to the prof by people the prof believes, even if the student is right, the argument is going no where, especially if the prof follows scientific teachings like a religion rather than something to be continually questioned. 

All any Professor can do is tell it as it is at that particular time: That can and does change over time, and the Professor obviously changes with the new discoveries or scientific application.eg: When I was a young bloke in the early fifties, the smallest planet was Mercury...After more accurate sightings calculations showed that Pluto actually was the smallest planet....Now Pluto has been declassified and is classed as a minor Planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, beecee said:

 

Religion is based on faith alone.People use it as a crutch. Science and scientific theories  are based on observational and experimental data.

 

Dark matter is based on what, it has not been observed, it is inferred from a theory, to support the theory. Other theories exist that do not require it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bender said:

 

"Refinement" describes more accurately how science works than "alternative". It is silly to call the current models, such as the standard model, wrong, since they are very effective in making predictions within their applicable area.  

It is however silly to accept the standard model as being flawless, because it is not. All people have brains and should question everything. If Einstein hadn't questioned newton, GPS would be crap. Generating none observed dark matter to support a theory that doesn't work without it seems a trifle flawed doesn't it. If people blindly go through life not questioning what the high priests of religion, politics or science etc want us to believe, what would the world be like?. We could have a benign dictatorship telling us what is fact or fiction etc and it could be BS.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

It is however silly to accept the standard model as being flawless, because it is not. All people have brains and should question everything. If Einstein hadn't questioned newton, GPS would be crap. Generating none observed dark matter to support a theory that doesn't work without it seems a trifle flawed doesn't it. If people blindly go through life not questioning what the high priests of religion, politics or science etc want us to believe, what would the world be like?. We could have a benign dictatorship telling us what is fact or fiction etc and it could be BS.   

!

Moderator Note

I've tried hiding posts that don't conform with my modnote, and that didn't work. So I'm closing the thread.

Being required to follow the rules is not a stipulation that's going to disappear. Ignoring it is net something that's consistent with your continued presence on this site.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.