Jump to content

Religious dogma has infected the world of science


ZVBXRPL
 Share

Recommended Posts

We are stuck in a dark age

 

The Big Bang Theory is the "scientific" version of Creationism

 

Questioning the Big Bang amounts to heresy in the scientific community

 

The Big Bang Theory and Expansion of the Universe Theory came from a Catholic priest, who taught at a Catholic University

 

It is quite convenient that his scientific theories tied in nicely with the religious dogma of Creationism

 

There is ZERO proof of either the Big Bang Theory or Expansion of the Universe Theory, just like there is ZERO proof of God

 

Hubble did not observe galaxies moving away from each other, he observed redshift and decided that the redshift was caused by galaxies moving away from each other, which fit in nicely with Lemaitre's Expanding Universe Theory

 

Also, with all the galaxies moving away from Earth, we can be centre of the Universe again

 

The presence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in the Universe proves the presence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in the Universe, no more, no less

 

How do you reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics?

 

That is an infamous question and so many scientists around the world are working furiously trying to solve it, hoping they will find the "Theory of Everything"

 

Maybe they cannot be reconciled because either a) General Relativity is wrong, b) Quantum Mechanics is wrong c) both are wrong

 

Scientists actually use Occam's Razor when speaking about the Big Bang Theory, so why not apply it to answer the above question too

 

But no, that answer is not acceptable in a scientific community that has been brainwashed and following religious dogma, they dare not entertain the possibilty that all their lfe's work is based on pseudoscience and science fiction, they would rather just keep scribbling away buried in equations and trapped inside the box, hoping to be the one to find the answer

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Welcome back.

 

In cased you missed them after your last hit and run series of posts, you were issued a few warnings that you might want to make yourself aware of. (see here and here)

 

I would also like to extend a friendly reminder to you that this area of SFN does have a set of rules that you need to follow in addition to the general forum rules. It would also be wise for you to tone down the inflammatory aspect of your posts. This is a discussion forum and trying to rile people with troll-ish behavior or plain old ignorance mixed with aggression will get you nowhere.

 

Lastly, I found it a little hard to decipher exactly what it is you're trying to talk about. If you could possibly rephrase your OP with a clear question and direction that you want this thread to go in, I'm sure members here would much appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are stuck in a dark age

 

The Big Bang Theory is the "scientific" version of Creationism

 

It can be viewed as such.

 

Questioning the Big Bang amounts to heresy in the scientific community

 

True, but not only Big bang. There is a plus still for the scientific community. They work with the idea that every theory is falsifiable.

 

Hubble did not observe galaxies moving away from each other, he observed redshift and decided that the redshift was caused by galaxies moving away from each other, which fit in nicely with Lemaitre's Expanding Universe Theory

 

I thought about that. I think that they didn't compensate for something: like time dilatation or time contraction.

 

Also, with all the galaxies moving away from Earth, we can be centre of the Universe again

 

Even without galaxies moving the Earth can be the center of the Universe "again" because there is no specific center (from what I know).

The Observer is the center.

 

But no, that answer is not acceptable in a scientific community that has been brainwashed and following religious dogma,

 

As a principle I think you mean, no? I don't think that the scientists are listening to the Church, on what it has to say.

Anyway, we people (so far) don't fit in the God concept (the all-knowing part). No one has all the answers. No one alone. And it's not about the quantity. If you don't have all the answers you can't be certain about the state of any given value. I think we should keep that in mind.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questioning the Big Bang amounts to heresy in the scientific community

Not at all provided you do this in a scientific way.

 

 

There is ZERO proof of either the Big Bang Theory or Expansion of the Universe Theory, just like there is ZERO proof of God

But there is lots of evidence for an expanding Universe.

 

 

Hubble did not observe galaxies moving away from each other, he observed redshift and decided that the redshift was caused by galaxies moving away from each other, which fit in nicely with Lemaitre's Expanding Universe Theory

Its fits nicley, this is the point. The observation of the redshift fits with the notion of an expanding Universe. So far no one has come up with any other possible mechanism for the redshift that fits with all the data.

 

 

The presence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in the Universe proves the presence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in the Universe, no more, no less

Same as for the redshift. No one has come up with any other mechanism than recombination in an expanding Universe to explain the CMBR. More than this, even the small scale fluctuations fit well with inflation.

 

Maybe they cannot be reconciled because either a) General Relativity is wrong, b) Quantum Mechanics is wrong c) both are wrong

Maybe both theoreies will fit into some other radical scheme.

 

But no, that answer is not acceptable in a scientific community that has been brainwashed and following religious dogma, they dare not entertain the possibilty that all their lfe's work is based on pseudoscience and science fiction, they would rather just keep scribbling away buried in equations and trapped inside the box, hoping to be the one to find the answer

Mmmmmmm, okay...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are stuck in a dark age

 

The Big Bang Theory is the "scientific" version of Creationism

 

Questioning the Big Bang amounts to heresy in the scientific community

Bollocks.

 

People question it all the time. Scientists have mapped the redshift more than once, to see if it matched up with the predictions of the BB. That's testing/questioning it. Scientists do things like this all the time.

 

 

There is ZERO proof of either the Big Bang Theory or Expansion of the Universe Theory, just like there is ZERO proof of God

Equivocation. Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence. So while technically true, it is is true in a meaningless way.

 

Hubble did not observe galaxies moving away from each other, he observed redshift and decided that the redshift was caused by galaxies moving away from each other, which fit in nicely with Lemaitre's Expanding Universe Theory

 

Also, with all the galaxies moving away from Earth, we can be centre of the Universe again

That is decidedly NOT a conclusion of the big bang.

 

The presence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in the Universe proves the presence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in the Universe, no more, no less

Yes, As above, using "prove" renders the statement meaningless. The goal of science is to model the behavior of the universe, not simply observe it. Anyone is free to try and develop a better model of why there is a CMB, but it will have to fit all the other data we have, as well.

 

How do you reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics?

 

That is an infamous question and so many scientists around the world are working furiously trying to solve it, hoping they will find the "Theory of Everything"

 

Maybe they cannot be reconciled because either a) General Relativity is wrong, b) Quantum Mechanics is wrong c) both are wrong

Could be, except that we have mounds upon mounds of evidence that say each are valid in the domains in which they have been tested. So we have a tremendous amount of confidence that they are not wrong. Included in that is the ability for someone to post this on the internet, using a computer, which depends on QM being right.

 

Scientists actually use Occam's Razor when speaking about the Big Bang Theory, so why not apply it to answer the above question too

 

But no, that answer is not acceptable in a scientific community that has been brainwashed and following religious dogma, they dare not entertain the possibilty that all their lfe's work is based on pseudoscience and science fiction, they would rather just keep scribbling away buried in equations and trapped inside the box, hoping to be the one to find the answer

I think you need to look up the definition of dogma, (and perhaps become aware of scientific journals, and scientists who do experiments) because this is laughably wrong. Science is continually tested to see if it matches with nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But no, that answer is not acceptable in a scientific community that has been brainwashed and following religious dogma, they dare not entertain the possibilty that all their lfe's work is based on pseudoscience and science fiction, they would rather just keep scribbling away buried in equations and trapped inside the box, hoping to be the one to find the answer

 

I've seen this stance many times before. Unfortunately, in claiming that scientific methodology is flawed due to narrow-minded, dogmatic pursuit of mainstream explanations, this argument fails because it's even more hidebound, convinced incontrovertibly that "the box" is wrong and all true answers must come from "outside the box". The "scribbling away buried in equations" argument tells us that maths are misunderstood, especially the way they're used to make predictive models.

 

The part about "they dare not entertain the possibilty [sic] that all their lfe's [sic] work is based on pseudoscience and science fiction", well, that sounds more like a fear that would vex the crackpot, not the scientist who followed a successful, proven method for creating solid foundations on which to build knowledge of our universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Planes fly

The religious extremist Dawkins proclaims that planes fly because of science, and his disciples blindly accept the lie as gospel.
The reason there are planes flying around is that people invented them in defiance of accepted scientific belief, not because of it. In the late 19th century, the leading physicist Lord Kelvin declared them impossible, but a bunch of crackpots ignored the experts and invented them anyway. Frank Whittle encountered similar resistance from the experts with his jet engine.
This does not prove that physics in general holds back technology, as there are many counter-examples such as Maxwell’s theoretical work leading directly to radio. But it does show how science-believers will accept anything they are told by a high priest of science-belief, even when it is clearly the opposite of the truth. Another example is the “relativity of wrong” sermon by the Assimov, which I debunk on another site it would be against the rules to advertise, so I should feel free to bring applicable parts of that discussion here.
Edited by Phi for All
removed link to blog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, science is always in the business of proving itself wrong.

If I publish a paper saying something, I can bet my socks that lots of people will do their best to show that I'm wrong.

 

So, perhaps Swanson't should have said "Modern planes fly(a hell of a lot better than the old ones did)" because of science.

 

When science stops trying to prove itself wrong and starts claiming that anyone doing so is immoral or evil, then you might be able to say that religion has infected science.

The purpose of science is to change, the purpose of religion is to stay the same.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But no, that answer is not acceptable in a scientific community that has been brainwashed and following religious dogma, they dare not entertain the possibilty that all their life's work is based on pseudoscience and science fiction, they would rather just keep scribbling away buried in equations and trapped inside the box, hoping to be the one to find the answer

I believe that you are asserting a misperception about how questions in astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology are investigated.

There is a book that I'm currently reading titled

 

"The 4 Percent Universe"

Subtitled: "Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality" by Richard Panek,

Published in 2011

 

The author expends considerable effort explaining how the EXPERIMENTAL side of astrophysics research is conducted, particularly in the investigation of supernovas, and how critically important such work is not only to astronomers but to theoretical cosmologists as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The religious extremist Dawkins proclaims that planes fly because of science, and his disciples blindly accept the lie as gospel.

 

The reason there are planes flying around is that people invented them in defiance of accepted scientific belief, not because of it. In the late 19th century, the leading physicist Lord Kelvin declared them impossible, but a bunch of crackpots ignored the experts and invented them anyway. Frank Whittle encountered similar resistance from the experts with his jet engine.

 

That seems to fit nicely with your narrative, except for one thing: it's BS. The fact that flight was developed was precisely because people don't blindly follow any so-called high priests of science. Your example actually shows the opposite of what you claim.

 

Also, I challenge you to provide a source for the Kelvin quote. There's no context to it.

 

He did say

"Some day, no doubt, some one will invent a flying machine that one will be able to navigate without having to have a balloon attachment. But the day is a long way off when we shall see human beings soaring around like birds."

 

Which is in stark contrast to the other one.

 

Furthermore, planes don't fly because people invented them. There's a difference between why planes fly and why we have planes, and you're mixing the two up. There are scientific principles at play, and people who design planes use these scientific principle. Even the one who invented flight used some of them.

 

Lastly, this is an anecdote. The plural of "anecdotes" is not "evidence", at least if you're a scientist. If one wanted to show evidence your thesis is correct, one would have to show systemic use of dogma, rather than cherry-picked quotes from someone with a big ego. Your claim that science is dogmatic is itself dogmatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The religious extremist Dawkins proclaims that planes fly because of science, and his disciples blindly accept the lie as gospel.
The reason there are planes flying around is that people invented them in defiance of accepted scientific belief, not because of it. In the late 19th century, the leading physicist Lord Kelvin declared them impossible, but a bunch of crackpots ignored the experts and invented them anyway. Frank Whittle encountered similar resistance from the experts with his jet engine.

 

Your assertions as to the context that lead to the development of flight are somewhat backwards. The development of flight, that is, the scientific discovery of the characteristics of flight was systematically revealed over several years through careful experimentation by the Wright brothers.

 

They first invented, again through careful experimentation, the instruments to study flight. They built the first wind tunnel that would later test over 200 scale wing configurations, one of which actually flew at Kitty hawk Dec. 17 1903. It was their discipline to the scientific process that enabled their success.

 

To discover human flight and not be killed while doing it was a direct consequence of the control that a diligent and thorough scientific study can produce. They flew their Wright glider one year earlier and accomplished their goals for tethered flights and returned home to Ohio by train. They carefully went over their data and returned the next year for their first powered flight. Careful, systematic accumulation of knowledge allowed human flight. A fact well sharpened with the knowledge that only one of them completed high school.

 

While the Wrights experimented some of their fellow seekers of flight died or were crippled as the first true crash test dummies.

 

The possibly ironic thing about your post on flight is that the Wright brothers could have likely flown on the 13th of Dec. instead of the 17th. The weather was perfect but they were the devout sons of a bishop and would not work on or attempt to fly their life's dream on a Sunday. Then weather and mishap delayed them until the 17th.

 

The irony is not in their religious devotion, or that they were encumbered very little by it. But it was the many religious commentators stating at the time that if man was intended to fly God would have given him wings. The Wrights could apparently accommodate both and be great scientists.

Edited by arc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say physics contains 3 distinct elements:


1. ‘The laws of physics’, which Newton might have referred to as God’s laws, which never change.


2. ‘The current laws of physicists’, which Newton might have described as man’s paltry attempt to explain God’s laws. Which are always partly right and partly wrong, and change from age to age.


3. The scientific experimental method, developed by Newton et al, which works very well and therefore need not be changed.


It could be said that the Wright brother succeeded because: 1. ‘The laws of physics’ are what they are. 2. They ignored ‘The current laws of physicists’ (though as Swansont says this is somewhat anecdotal). 3. They employed the experimental method (as stated by Arc).


When people criticise physics, they are invariably criticising ‘The current laws of physicists’. But physics-believers tend to respond as though this is an attack on their faith as a whole, as illustrated by John Cuthber's and Arc’s defence of the undisputed value of the scientific experimental method. And I think that somewhere in his brain, Swansont is arguing that since planes rely on ‘The laws of physics’, that somehow physics can claim the credit, in the same way Newton might have credited God.


The reason physics comes across as a religion, is that physics-believers always seem convinced that ‘The laws of physics’ and ‘The current laws of physicists’ are one and the same, despite the experimental evidence that they never have been in the past. The oath of allegiance is apparently so strong nowadays that nobody in the physics community is even prepared to dismiss the nonsense of time travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious, newts; do all of your objections to general relativity come from your objection to "time travel"? Because you keep coming back to that same point, over and over and over again; it is always at the end of all of your rants about physics being a religion. If general relativity didn't include anything about "time travel", would you actually have any other objection to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people who have no understanding of science or how scientists work offer so much criticism of science?

 

All the threads like this are just full of misunderstanding and even BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say physics contains 3 distinct elements:

 

1. ‘The laws of physics’, which Newton might have referred to as God’s laws, which never change.

 

2. ‘The current laws of physicists’, which Newton might have described as man’s paltry attempt to explain God’s laws. Which are always partly right and partly wrong, and change from age to age.

 

3. The scientific experimental method, developed by Newton et al, which works very well and therefore need not be changed.

 

It could be said that the Wright brother succeeded because: 1. ‘The laws of physics’ are what they are. 2. They ignored ‘The current laws of physicists’ (though as Swansont says this is somewhat anecdotal). 3. They employed the experimental method (as stated by Arc).

My objection is not limited to the fact that Kelvin's quote is unsourced (by anyone) but also due to the unjustifiable extrapolation of the pronouncement of one physicist to suddenly become representative of all physics. Your use of ‘The current laws of physicists’ is plural, and yet you give just one unconfirmed example. This is simply a dogmatic assertion on your part.

 

When people criticise physics, they are invariably criticising ‘The current laws of physicists’. But physics-believers tend to respond as though this is an attack on their faith as a whole, as illustrated by John Cuthber's and Arc’s defence of the undisputed value of the scientific experimental method. And I think that somewhere in his brain, Swansont is arguing that since planes rely on ‘The laws of physics’, that somehow physics can claim the credit, in the same way Newton might have credited God.

 

 

Since I have neither proposed nor endorsed your scenario, my arguments should not be put in its context.

 

The reason physics comes across as a religion, is that physics-believers always seem convinced that ‘The laws of physics’ and ‘The current laws of physicists’ are one and the same, despite the experimental evidence that they never have been in the past.

 

 

On the contrary. I think you'll find that many scientists are aware that all of our models are approximations and provisional, to be updated when new data demand it. For your thesis to be true, how could we have models of both Newtonian gravity and then general relativity? Classical and Quantum mechanics? The very existence of these "new" models contradicts your claim.

 

The oath of allegiance is apparently so strong nowadays that nobody in the physics community is even prepared to dismiss the nonsense of time travel.

Nobody? Really? I know that ideology serves to put blinders on, but your church of science-is-religion has really outdone itself. The reality is pretty much the opposite of what you claim. Physics rules out time travel of the sort depicted in movies; there are one or two scenarios that have not yet been ruled out for time travel of any sort at all. What you have (in actual reality) are a handful of physicist who think they have found a loophole somewhere and are investigating that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It could be said that the Wright brother succeeded because: 1. ‘The laws of physics’ are what they are. 2. They ignored ‘The current laws of physicists’

 

Number 1. is affirming the obvious. Number 2. is incorrect because the Wright's work began on a foundation of previous work by many scientists including that of George Cayley, an English engineer and one of the most influential people in aeronautical history. Believed by many to be the farther of aeronautical sciences and the underlying principles of flight. And also Samuel Langley the American astrophysicist and astronomer who built and flew steam powered model airplanes. One of which flew 1.2 kilometers in 1891.

 

So advances in science are by; previous work improved and made more accurate. Combining old and new ideas. Using other fields as inspiration and information for new concepts.

 

I believe you are confused by the nature of discovery, the natural process of the accumulation of knowledge. It resembles a flowing river that began as a trickle in antiquity, moving in one direction, always looking to change course and find the path of least resistance (Occam's razor). As it moved into the future its volume increased as smaller streams and rivers of information added to the growing body of knowledge.

 

​ Many of the course changes began as simple spills into a lower area while others took great amounts of erosion to breach an impasse (LHC). But one thing is certain, the total volume of knowledge provides the momentum, the force that allows new discoveries. That is clear from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution to our current Tech Revolution.

 

Their are no separate trickles or streams that create parallel but separate discovery. All current work is supported by THE PREVIOUS.

Edited by arc
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.