Jump to content

Science is all about religion?


ukgazzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I thought that science was all about religion.

~99% of people wish that physics could be understood

~1% of people believe that expressing their suspicions and risking looking like a fool is worth it if it inspires somebody.

Educated individuals don`t seem to believe that they can risk doing so-which is a pity really because then we`re stuck.

I would like to believe that there was chronic 'Not being able to see the wood for the trees' syndrome in the academic community and that one revelation would make everything simple,predictable and understandable again- but that is a belief- probably one shared by a lot of people.

I would like to believe that a theory will come along that will enable us to go to the stars,see the regions around black holes etc for ourselves because I don`t want people to be sitting in front of screens on the internet in 100 years time arguing about quarks and religion.

The most knowledgeable individuals here are expressing an attitude that only theories that supply testable predictions and that can be verified are worth their time of day- What about new theories that agree with observation but with predictions that can`t be tested in the near future- Will they be forgotten?

Is it unscientific to believe that theories should be expressed in a language that is consistent with other theories as well as providing solid maths?

I wish that newts was one of the moderators in this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that science was all about religion.

~99% of people wish that physics could be understood

~1% of people believe that expressing their suspicions and risking looking like a fool is worth it if it inspires somebody.

Educated individuals don`t seem to believe that they can risk doing so-which is a pity really because then we`re stuck.

Err. That is quite false.

I would like to believe that there was chronic 'Not being able to see the wood for the trees' syndrome in the academic community and that one revelation would make everything simple,predictable and understandable again- but that is a belief- probably one shared by a lot of people.

I would like to believe that a theory will come along that will enable us to go to the stars,see the regions around black holes etc for ourselves because I don`t want people to be sitting in front of screens on the internet in 100 years time arguing about quarks and religion.

The most knowledgeable individuals here are expressing an attitude that only theories that supply testable predictions and that can be verified are worth their time of day- What about new theories that agree with observation but with predictions that can`t be tested in the near future- Will they be forgotten?

You've misread the thread. The problem is not just that newts is proposing an idea (note: not a theory) that (so far as I have seen so far) has no proposed statistical test even in the future, but that newt's idea is attempting to replace a theory that has already done so with enormous amounts of confirming evidence. Accepting his idea would require removing the explanation for many, many experiments and replace it with literally nothing, as newts has not been able to explain a single experiment in terms of his theory.

Is it unscientific to believe that theories should be expressed in a language that is consistent with other theories as well as providing solid maths?

First, it is not consistent with other theories. Second, where is the "solid maths"?

I wish that newts was one of the moderators in this forum.

Personally, I find it a good thing that you don't have a vote on this; newts does not appear to understand the scientific process, has lied and has derided people who are doing the exact thing that you are talking about in this thread.

=Uncool-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the 1% of people who are convinced that they understand physics would come out of the woodwork and supply us with a theory of everything!

It is human nature for people who are accustomed to one thing finding it difficult to accept and adapt to another - I can`t see how scientists can be insulated from this.

Scientists seem like politicians in that they often can`t say what they think in public because they might offend a lot of people. Unless you`re at the very top of your field like Einstein (There isn`t anybody like that on this forum is there?!!)

I like the concept of people expressing ideas- I wish there were more of them- and preferably the stranger the ideas are the better- because that might make clever people think about things in a different way and maybe come up with a better version of the truth.

GR and QM aren`t expressed in a consistent language. Even though the equations are revolutionary the interpretations seem inconsistent with each other (at least to me)- This is my most common gripe.

Sorry I was being a little facetious- I think that newts becoming a moderator would really irritate quite a few people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the 1% of people who are convinced that they understand physics would come out of the woodwork and supply us with a theory of everything!

 

And I wish I had a pony. Any other unrealistic expectations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the 1% of people who are convinced that they understand physics would come out of the woodwork and supply us with a theory of everything!

It is human nature for people who are accustomed to one thing finding it difficult to accept and adapt to another - I can`t see how scientists can be insulated from this.

Scientists seem like politicians in that they often can`t say what they think in public because they might offend a lot of people. Unless you`re at the very top of your field like Einstein (There isn`t anybody like that on this forum is there?!!)

I like the concept of people expressing ideas- I wish there were more of them- and preferably the stranger the ideas are the better- because that might make clever people think about things in a different way and maybe come up with a better version of the truth.

GR and QM aren`t expressed in a consistent language. Even though the equations are revolutionary the interpretations seem inconsistent with each other (at least to me)- This is my most common gripe.

Sorry I was being a little facetious- I think that newts becoming a moderator would really irritate quite a few people.

 

To ukgazzer;

 

 

That was the best post that I have seen on this or any other science forum in 50 + years that I have been debating physics starting in coffeehouse in the sixties.

 

swansont The one that I respect the most on this forum has one of the most closed-mind of any here! And that is really sad !!

 

It all took a wrong turn with the missed understanding of the double slit experiment in the 20's.

 

And along with the discovery of the universe is expanding that took everyone away for Einstein's work that was right ON , but no one would pay attention to him any longer.

 

Well with the new MIT very high speed camera I know that the 1920's experiment can be turned around and be totally understood and fully predictable.

 

And GR and QM can be expressed in a consistent language.

 

Part #2

And yes Einstein’s Cosmological Constant can explain a static;

 

1. The planet moon systems.

 

2. The solar systems.

 

3. The galactic systems.

 

4. Along with why the galaxies are accelerating away from each other.

 

It is all in understanding the making of High-Density Mass and the expelling of true gravitational fields.

 

one & two slets.bmp

pin hole camera.bmp

Edited by Amateur -1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ukgazzer;

 

 

That was the best post that I have seen on this or any other science forum in 50 + years that I have been debating physics starting in coffeehouse in the sixties.

 

swansont The one that I respect the most on this forum has one of the most closed-mind of any here! And that is really sad !!

 

It all took a wrong turn with the missed understanding of the double slit experiment in the 20's.

 

And along with the discovery of the universe is expanding that took everyone away for Einstein's work that was right ON , but no one would pay attention to him any longer.

 

Well with the new MIT very high speed camera I know that the 1920's experiment can be turned around and be totally understood and fully predictable.

 

And GR and QM can be expressed in a consistent language.

 

Part #2

And yes Einstein's Cosmological Constant can explain a static;

 

1. The planet moon systems.

 

2. The solar systems.

 

3. The galactic systems.

 

4. Along with why the galaxies are accelerating away from each other.

 

It is all in understanding the making of High-Density Mass and the expelling of true gravitational fields.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

This is thread hijacking. I see that you've started your own thread for your idea, but please don't do this again to someone else's thread. Please stay on topic to the thread you post to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Humans have evolved to accept whatever they are taught, and to believe what those around them believe; so any group of humans is always going to behave religiously, unless they are all autistic, in which case they cannot really form a group at all. It is possible to exploit this religious instinct, by teaching people that they have a duty to challenge existing ideas; and that used to be part of the scientific education. Unfortunately it has rather gone out of fashion, as nowadays people are taught that science is an alternative to religion; and that they have a duty to accept that all of current science must be correct, because it is proved by experiment, without being expected to have any understanding of the experiments on which they base their faith.

 

I am no conspiracy theorist; and I do not even think the people who banned Galileo's book, did so because in their conscious minds they felt he was correct. I am fairly sure that they felt he was misleading people with false arguments, which most certainly was the case with his tidal theory. The problem is more that unless people spend their whole lives thinking about the universe, it is impossible to gain any proper understanding. Brian the Cool Fox goes on TV boldly declaring that astrology is rubbish, yet seems quite happy with the concept of time travel. To a rational mind, time travel is impossible fiction, and incompatible with the universe existing; whilst astrology is more a case of a proper scientific idea, taken to ridiculously absurd lengths. But an ordinary human, like the Cool Fox, cannot work that out; all he can do is repeat that astrology is nonsense and that time travel might be possible, because that is what he has been taught to believe.

 

Religion is not just about conforming, it is also about believing in nonsense; and since physics has become a religion, in order to attract followers it has had to fill up with nonsense like time travel, multiple universes and 13 dimensions. The quarks and gluons I am arguing against, are not nonsense of this calibre, rather they are misguided attempts to explain real phenomena, along the lines of phlogiston. However the people in am arguing with; either believe nonsense like time travel, or are prepared to say they do in order to appease their religious leaders. Arguing physics with somebody who believes in time travel, is like arguing about the Bible with somebody who believes that Jesus turned water into wine; largely futile, because they have unwittingly replaced rational thought with religious faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans have evolved to accept whatever they are taught, and to believe what those around them believe; so any group of humans is always going to behave religiously, unless they are all autistic, in which case they cannot really form a group at all. It is possible to exploit this religious instinct, by teaching people that they have a duty to challenge existing ideas; and that used to be part of the scientific education. Unfortunately it has rather gone out of fashion, as nowadays people are taught that science is an alternative to religion; and that they have a duty to accept that all of current science must be correct, because it is proved by experiment, without being expected to have any understanding of the experiments on which they base their faith.

 

Wait, what? You have religious indoctrination that has people questioning indoctrination? How does that work, exactly?

 

If science is religion and all we have is blind acceptance of the status quo, how do you explain scientific progress? You can't believe in something that has not yet been discovered.

 

 

I am no conspiracy theorist; and I do not even think the people who banned Galileo's book, did so because in their conscious minds they felt he was correct. I am fairly sure that they felt he was misleading people with false arguments, which most certainly was the case with his tidal theory. The problem is more that unless people spend their whole lives thinking about the universe, it is impossible to gain any proper understanding. Brian the Cool Fox goes on TV boldly declaring that astrology is rubbish, yet seems quite happy with the concept of time travel. To a rational mind, time travel is impossible fiction, and incompatible with the universe existing; whilst astrology is more a case of a proper scientific idea, taken to ridiculously absurd lengths. But an ordinary human, like the Cool Fox, cannot work that out; all he can do is repeat that astrology is nonsense and that time travel might be possible, because that is what he has been taught to believe.

 

Who is Brian the Cool Fox? Some cartoon character?

 

Religion is not just about conforming, it is also about believing in nonsense; and since physics has become a religion, in order to attract followers it has had to fill up with nonsense like time travel, multiple universes and 13 dimensions. The quarks and gluons I am arguing against, are not nonsense of this calibre, rather they are misguided attempts to explain real phenomena, along the lines of phlogiston. However the people in am arguing with; either believe nonsense like time travel, or are prepared to say they do in order to appease their religious leaders. Arguing physics with somebody who believes in time travel, is like arguing about the Bible with somebody who believes that Jesus turned water into wine; largely futile, because they have unwittingly replaced rational thought with religious faith.

 

"Science is religion" is a convenient fiction; believing it permits one to dismiss any criticism with a one-size-fits-all ad hominem (or equivalent, as applied to a group). Arguing science with someone who engages in and relies on logical fallacies is as equally futile as the scenario you describe here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and since physics has become a religion,

 

Please provide some evidence of this happening recently. That is, please provide some instance in the last 50 years of some belief that the average physicist held or holds today based on faith alone (i.e. no evidence).

 

This should be easy to provide, else YOU are asking us to take THIS statement on faith, and YOU are at least as bad as the people you are railing against. If you don't have any evidence, I'd even argue that YOU are worse, since you are spreading falsehoods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only speak of my experience at university.Orwell would call it Groupthink. Officially there`s no plagiarism but everybody copied everybody elses write-ups -It went to the extent that somebody would answer a question incorrectly - clearly contrary to what textbooks say- and get a good mark and then everybody else would follow suit for fear of being marked down.

Traditionally lecture theaters are portrayed as places where lecturers lecture,and students ask questions- In 3 years I can barely remember an instance of anybody asking questions. I myself had lots of questions and I`ve come on the internet years later to try and find some answers- but few people seem to want to provide any. Few people seem to want to ask questions either anymore. Shouldn`t science be about asking questions rather than just accepting everything?

Lee Smolin describes modern physics in a recent book 'The Trouble With Physics' in a way that makes it sound more like the film industry.The Professor Wheelers of this world are like big Hollywood producers and gaining their support is as important as the work itself. Important fields of study receive no funding because they are unfashionable. How did we get into this situation?

The fact that most people seem to be happy with it makes it seem more like religious fervor than logic - People seem to be unknowingly getting indoctrinated.

I was TOTALLY disillusioned with the state of science when I left university and I believe that there`s a real possibility that the evidence will soon be so overwhelming that some of the more recent established theories could be overturned- but it might take a lot more evidence than it should and I have little confidence that a sizable minority will ever accept change because they`ve been brought up to believe something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only speak of my experience at university.Orwell would call it Groupthink.

Well he might have done if he had been alive when the term was coined. Admittedly it is very Orwellian - but it was actually first used in 1952.

 

Officially there`s no plagiarism but everybody copied everybody elses write-ups -It went to the extent that somebody would answer a question incorrectly - clearly contrary to what textbooks say- and get a good mark and then everybody else would follow suit for fear of being marked down.
That's bad - but not really religious. Sounds more like poor teaching and quality control.

 

Traditionally lecture theaters are portrayed as places where lecturers lecture,and students ask questions- In 3 years I can barely remember an instance of anybody asking questions. I myself had lots of questions and I`ve come on the internet years later to try and find some answers- but few people seem to want to provide any. Few people seem to want to ask questions either anymore. Shouldn`t science be about asking questions rather than just accepting everything?
Yes - they should ask questions; I have never known that problem personally; but I have heard of entire classes that get into a habit of not asking questions.

 

Lee Smolin describes modern physics in a recent book 'The Trouble With Physics' in a way that makes it sound more like the film industry.The Professor Wheelers of this world are like big Hollywood producers and gaining their support is as important as the work itself. Important fields of study receive no funding because they are unfashionable. How did we get into this situation?
Lee Smolin does have a bit of an axe to grind - but I would again ask, even if he is right, what does this have to do with religion? It's human nature; people flock to the superstars with charisma and results. Much of the time this charisma is what allows them to be great communicators qv Feynman

 

The fact that most people seem to be happy with it makes it seem more like religious fervor than logic - People seem to be unknowingly getting indoctrinated.
This is where you need to provide some meat; because without a bit proof, or at very least a very good explanation, most of the posters here will be unsympathetic. The reason for that lack of agreement is not indoctrination - it is because every day they see dogma tackled, received wisdom challenged, holy cows etc...

 

I was TOTALLY disillusioned with the state of science when I left university and I believe that there`s a real possibility that the evidence will soon be so overwhelming that some of the more recent established theories could be overturned- but it might take a lot more evidence than it should and I have little confidence that a sizable minority will ever accept change because they`ve been brought up to believe something different.
This is similar to Kuhn's theory - just a bit more fatalistic. It will always take more evidence than it should - but if a paradigm-breaking new theory is right there is a never ending supply of evidence, whereas the guys supporting an incorrect status quo nearly always rely on small sections of cherry picked data. Edited by imatfaal
spelling mistakes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply.The history of science is full of crackpots but also of accepted wisdom being challenged and fiercely defended - often without good reason.I can`t see how science can suddenly have become enlightened in the last 100 years.

I cant say that I`ve ever really been a fan of anybody (apart from the opposite sex)-I think that might be why I question everybody!:blink:

Lee Smolin has an axe to grind because he says that he`s working in an unfashionable field - Should there be fashion in physics? In the end it`s just semantics.Ideally there should only be logic in science.

I also think that the lecturers are generally a lot cleverer than the undergraduates (cleverer than me anyway!) and very few of them now have time for another dumb question from the audience - The ones in the UK at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UKGazzer - if you haven't read any Thomas Kuhn you should do! His concept of scientific advancement through paradigm shift seems very similar to your ideas. I think science in the 20th and 21st Centuries is markedly different from that of the previous eras; received wisdom is challenged and over-turned at such a rate that change is the rule rather than the exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is Brian the Cool Fox? Some cartoon character?

He does come across as a bit of a cartoon character, and he might appear to be full of s**t, but he is actually flesh and blood like the rest of us.

 

Please provide some evidence of this happening recently. That is, please provide some instance in the last 50 years of some belief that the average physicist held or holds today based on faith alone (i.e. no evidence).

The example I gave was time travel, which is more ridiculous than Jesus turning water into wine. I have never obtained a proper answer from a physics-believer on this subject; they always evade the question, maybe because nobody has taught them the answer? Perhaps they cannot defend it, because they know in their heart of hearts it is nonsense; but they cannot condemn it, because that would be a betrayal of their faith, and an implied criticism of those community leaders who fleece the general public with 'physics' books about such nonsense.

 

Lee Smolin has an axe to grind

It shows the shameful state of modern physics, that a 99.99% mainstream physics-believer like Smolin, can be portrayed as some kind of dissident. Feynman described string theory as nonsense, but Smolin barely even criticises it; indeed his only really gripe seems to be that string theory gets nearly all the funding, when he would rather that more of it went to himself.

 

Rutherford rubbished special relativity, Dirac wanted to revert to the Lorentzian aether, whilst Einstein mocked quantum mechanics. Nowadays nobody seems to criticise even the most absurdly ridiculous parts of modern physics; instead they criticise the critics, or they criticise the beliefs of other groups, which is classic religious behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me?

 

Time for some psycho-babble: - I'm sure that some people see you as closed-mined just as some people consider me to be closed minded. I also don't believe that either of us are closed-minded. I think it's a matter of perception. The person who said that has experiences which form his perceptions just as it does to all of us. To a large extent I believe that everyone has perceptions about everyone else which are formed from past experiences and I'm convinced that those experiences are embedded in our subconscience. Whew! That was a pretty labored response.

 

I had a friend who I thought I knew well. One day I stopped ny his house while he was online and posting to some sort of forum. He turned out to be what we call a "flamewarrior". I saw him in a totally different light after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does come across as a bit of a cartoon character, and he might appear to be full of s**t, but he is actually flesh and blood like the rest of us.

 

That doesn't answer the question.

 

The example I gave was time travel, which is more ridiculous than Jesus turning water into wine. I have never obtained a proper answer from a physics-believer on this subject; they always evade the question, maybe because nobody has taught them the answer? Perhaps they cannot defend it, because they know in their heart of hearts it is nonsense; but they cannot condemn it, because that would be a betrayal of their faith, and an implied criticism of those community leaders who fleece the general public with 'physics' books about such nonsense.

 

And time travel is a very vague reference. There are circumstances that physics hasn't ruled out, but I doubt you'll find many physicists who think that a practical device could be built, especially for macroscopic entities. What makes this faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The example I gave was time travel, which is more ridiculous than Jesus turning water into wine. I have never obtained a proper answer from a physics-believer on this subject; they always evade the question, maybe because nobody has taught them the answer? Perhaps they cannot defend it, because they know in their heart of hearts it is nonsense; but they cannot condemn it, because that would be a betrayal of their faith, and an implied criticism of those community leaders who fleece the general public with 'physics' books about such nonsense.

 

I only wanted to 100% back up swansont's comment. I don't think that this fulfills my requirement that a majority of physicists take this on faith. Care to try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And time travel is a very vague reference. There are circumstances that physics hasn't ruled out, but I doubt you'll find many physicists who think that a practical device could be built, especially for macroscopic entities. What makes this faith?

I doubt you'll find many priests who think that a practical device could be built to turn water into wine, unless it involves feeding the water to a grape-vine; but they would not go round rubbishing the idea, because it is part of their faith. A similar situation seems to exist with physicists. Time travel is an entirely fictional concept, so any physicist who even tacitly acknowledges that it could in principle be possible, is acting religiously; because they are only doing so because they have been taught to, because others do, and because they like to believe that the universe is mysterious and mystical.

 

I only wanted to 100% back up swansont's comment. I don't think that this fulfills my requirement that a majority of physicists take this on faith. Care to try again?

Are you saying that time travel is not a valid example, because although it is complete nonsense, most physicists do not believe in it? Or are you arguing that although most physicists accept it, there is no proof that it is rubbish?

 

Swansont seems to genuinely accept the mainstream line; that time travel is theoretically possible, but not yet proven. I suspect you more incline to the view that it is impossible, but prefer to publicly agree 100% with Swansont.

 

When I first saw TV shows where professors said that time travel could be possible, I accepted it because they were supposedly experts. It was only when I stated thinking about the universe, that it became apparent the whole thing was nonsense. Accepting what we are told is quick and easy, thinking things out takes longer. Rejecting the Bible is none too difficult, because there are plenty of religious extremists like Dawkins encouraging people to do so. Denying that science is the one true faith, is much harder, because there is no support available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a majority of physicists will accept that there are certain equations that attempt to answer some of the currently unsolved problems of physics appear to allow time travel. But, they aren't going to accept the 'Star Trek', 'Dr. Who', 'H.G. Wells', 'Back To The Future' vision of time travel without significant evidence, and certainly aren't believed in by a majority of physicists. And, those equations aren't accepted are wholly true -- they are attempts to address one aspect of the unsolved problems and seem to allow other unobserved phenomena. This actually is kind of one way how science actually works, ya know, when an equation seems to help in one way, it is explored what else the equation says, and if it predicts things that are impossible or unobserved, then it is rejected. This is actually an example of science, not religion.

 

In short, I think, as swansont said, just saying 'time travel' is awfully vague. 'Time travel' into the future is certainly possible, for example. Cryogenics and time dilation are both real phenomena.

 

Care to try again? Either with a more specific aspect of 'time travel' or maybe a less vague example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt you'll find many priests who think that a practical device could be built to turn water into wine, unless it involves feeding the water to a grape-vine; but they would not go round rubbishing the idea, because it is part of their faith. A similar situation seems to exist with physicists. Time travel is an entirely fictional concept, so any physicist who even tacitly acknowledges that it could in principle be possible, is acting religiously; because they are only doing so because they have been taught to, because others do, and because they like to believe that the universe is mysterious and mystical.

 

On the contrary, saying that something is impossible without any basis in theory is entirely within scientific decorum. Violate that, and there be dragons. In the appropriate jargon, physics may allow for closed timelike curves. They are not (yet) shown to be impossible. That's a factual statement, giving the status of the theory. In what way is that faith? Besides, we all time travel, in a trivial sense. But as you have not defined what you mean, one can still include the trivial case, which means your objection is moot.

 

Time travel of the sci-fi variety, as mentioned by Bignose, has been ruled out.

 

Here are more details regarding time travel

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/05/14/rules-for-time-travelers/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is largely empirical and it is maths that is platonic. There is a good discussion of the difference between these at: http://newempiricism.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/science-empirical-or-platonic.html

 

As an empirical pursuit anyone indulging in science would need to observe something that is directly related to the spiritual to do a "science of religion". Is there anything observable that is spiritual? Take a look at: http://newempiricism.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/nature-of-soul.html (The Nature of the Soul).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to try again? Either with a more specific aspect of 'time travel' or maybe a less vague example?

You are still arguing both that time travel is not nonsense; and even if it is, it is not believed by most physicists. That is the stance of somebody defending their religion, not somebody who wants to distinguish between right and wrong theories.

 

The fact that clocks run faster on GPS satellites, is experimentally proven, as well as logically deducible without recourse to Einsteinian spacetime. But that is not time travel. If a satellite returned to earth, we would not find that the clock was missing because it had moved a couple of milliseconds into the past or future.

 

Years ago immortality was the stuff of myths. That is no longer so, because atoms are effectively immortal, and since humans are made of atoms, all we need to do is sort out the chemistry. On the other hand time travel is impossible; even an electron moving one pico-second into the past or future is wholly absurd, as there is no time in which to travel.

 

H G Wells' time travel, is the only type of time travel, unless you include everyday occurrences like clocks running at different rates. When Hawking discusses time travel, he tends to start by talking about there being no time travellers from the future around, and then moves on to time dilation. This is wholly bogus, and just exploits people's urge to believe in the supernatural. There is no link between the two ideas, and no grey area in between. It is not me who is failing to be specific, it is the physics fantasists who try to blur the distinction between fact and fantasy, so that they can fleece the general public.

 

In the appropriate jargon, physics may allow for closed timelike curves. They are not (yet) shown to be impossible.

Here are more details regarding time travel

http://blogs.discove...time-travelers/

There is no absolute proof that it is impossible for a frog to magically turn into a prince, but to a rational mind it is just a fairy story like time travel. In case any science-believers are in doubt as to whether they should wait for proof before dismissing the idea, here is the great profit Dawkins using his knowledge of biology and evolution to confirm that the frog idea that should not be believed.

 

 

The only reason people take the time travel idea more seriously than the frog, is that they have been taught to. The fact that Sean Carroll believes in time travel, is not proof that it is right, it is proof that Carroll is a fool. The fact that you cite his article, shows that you prefer to rely on the authority of your religious leaders rather than making up your mind based on the experimental evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans have evolved to accept whatever they are taught, and to believe what those around them believe; so any group of humans is always going to behave religiously, unless they are all autistic, in which case they cannot really form a group at all.....

Do you classify skepticism as a religion?

 

....and since physics has become a religion...

Forum rule: assertions require support. Please provide some proof of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.