Just stop the useless complaining.

POSTED BY: LostInTheVerse
UPDATED: Thursday, November 25, 2004 04:27
VIEWED: 24069
PAGE 7 of 17

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The usual trio of verbotten subjects is politics, religion, and sex. Sex is boring. We need a third verbotten topic.

---

If we were all in the southern US we could try to not discuss the Civil War.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I think you are coming with a different set of references and vocabulary, which is making it hard for me to get what you are saying.

So here's my take on some topics. Maybe we can go back and forth long enough to establish a dialogue.

Quote:

---

However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.

---

Actually, science can't prove anything, it can only disprove. (To prove something you'd have to test EVERY instance in the forever universe - an impossibility; to disprove something, you only have to do that once.) While it may be that people (in general) think that science has Truth, or perhaps many lesser truths, the scientific process isn't directed that way at all. And as I said, even scientists can't 'prove' anything is true, which makes it a 100% human condition. We are all puny questers.

Quote:

---

To roughly qualify as a religion you must:
1. Give an explanation to the world around.
2. Explain "crisis" events.
3. Have a seperate class/caste (in your case scientists) who interprets the above things.
Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.

---

I'm not sure I follow step 2. What is a crisis event? How does it apply to science? Please explain. Thanks. Merci beaucoups.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NervousPete:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CapnRahn:
TheGreyJedi: BTW - Yer a nearsighted, smeg swilling, yak piss drinkin'. rabid fornicator of household appliances, scabby bald Lemur. I wave my privates at yer aunties!

apologies to - the nearsighted, swillers of smeg, yak brew imbibers, Menage'a'appliance enthusiasts, Lemurs with excessive skin conditions and Aunts who have been traumatized by flashers. OH yes, and to Monty Python - for lifting a line!
from that 'special hell'

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

---

*Bops Capnrahn on head with stiff cardboard tube out of sense of principle, but respects comical and original over-the-top surreal delivery. Bad lad! Stop!*

This is an example of...

*Sigh*

*Retreats to watch exciting fight because he can't be bothered. And he's wondering why he cares so much about people debating on the net. And he realises that it's because he's tired and he hasn't let go yet. And he believes that there's still hope out there. And now he's realising that he's probably wrong, and that people will always be arrogant and arsey, and that arrogance is ignorance grown up, and that he can no longer tell between playful jape and dangerous trivialisation in posts, and he wonders if it's because something is wrong with him, or he's just tired, and that maybe he's a fool for believing in stating his principles when a foreign land dismisses him, and then he knows that he feels beaten and that he still wants to stand up - and now he feels that he has to go and read some Calvin & Hobbes and forget.

*Sigh*

"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash

---

**Accepts bop on the head and grins maniacally**
Egg-Zactly what I had in mind - we all need a break before we forget that there is still humor around. And that we, here at FFFn, are still friends and even family.

EDIT
I fergot to whine :"But, but, but - TheGreyJedi started it - whaaaaaaaaaaa!"

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I think you are coming with a different set of references and vocabulary, which is making it hard for me to get what you are saying.

So here's my take on some topics. Maybe we can go back and forth long enough to establish a dialogue.

Quote:

---

However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.

---

Actually, science can't prove anything, it can only disprove. (To prove something you'd have to test EVERY instance in the forever universe - an impossibility; to disprove something, you only have to do that once.)

---

You can proof through inductive reasoning though.
You wouldn't have to exhaustively proof every single case, if you can show it through 3 steps that it's true for the initial case, then true for the nth case, and finally also true for the n+1 case b/c it's true for the nth case. Then it's true for every single case.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:


While it may be that people (in general) think that science has Truth, or perhaps many lesser truths, the scientific process isn't directed that way at all. And as I said, even scientists can't 'prove' anything is true, which makes it a 100% human condition. We are all puny questers.

Quote:

---

To roughly qualify as a religion you must:
1. Give an explanation to the world around.
2. Explain "crisis" events.
3. Have a seperate class/caste (in your case scientists) who interprets the above things.
Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.

---

I'm not sure I follow step 2. What is a crisis event? How does it apply to science? Please explain. Thanks. Merci beaucoups.

---

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I think only in the realm of mathematics and logic can things be 'proven' consistent (not necessarily true), but even then one starts with unprovable assumptions.
However, even in mathematics, it's hard to understand the limits of your assumptions. For example the commutative property (on which so much mathematics rests) is only true in a limited number of dimensions.

Beauty is truth and truth is beauty. Or something like that.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I think only in the realm of mathematics and logic can things be 'proven' consistent (not necessarily true), but even then one starts with unprovable assumptions.
However, even in mathematics, it's hard to understand the limits of your assumptions. For example the commutative property (on which so much mathematics rests) is only true in a limited number of dimensions.

Beauty is truth and truth is beauty. Or something like that.

---

Well, not everything can be proven through inductive reasoning, it is a particular class of problem. But mathematics is the language behind science. There are things that can be proven through logic and reasoning. However, I agree with your discussion that there are certain things within the science and even math field that are taken based on faith. At it's basis in the math field. The point is just a construct. You build lines and fields and space with points. You reduce spaces and different dimensions into fields. But all of these things are based on these basic "unprovable" constructs. Some set of basic precepts.

If you look at the birth of Mathematics and Science, you'll find guys like Pythagorean who basically formed these huge cults where they studied the mystical properties of numbers. All of these scientists and mathematicians through the early industrial period were pretty much all very devoutly religious people who wanted to deduce the mysteries that "God" has created.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Nuh-uh! Doodyhead!

--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com

http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

My point is that society as a whole takes science on faith. 90% of the world knows the earth is round, water is made of H2O, and that there are 8 other planets. However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.

---

So what? No-one can be an expert on everything. Everyone has to take something, on faith (regardless of education) in there day to day life. It doesn't make it religion, it just makes it reality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Furthermore, there are quite a few gaps in sience such as why Newton's laws don't work on the sub-atmoic level, which are glossed over with "science hasn't discovered it yet." Which sounds rather similar to "God hasn't revealed it yet."

---

Newton's physics only applies to a specific situation. Since then, we have learned about many things that makes them "invalide." Everyday new holes are found in theories and others are filled. It is the nature of science.

It's called learning.

You seem to not realize that every physical system that is constructed has built-in limitations. Why doesn't Newtonian physics work at the sub-atomic level. Because it wasn't designed to! It was designed to explain other things. It is a limiting case of another theory. The goal of physics is to go up that theory heirarchy to one in which everything else is a limiting case, connecting all theories together.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.

---

Science is only a religion to those that don't understand science and have heard someone say, that they consider "smart", that science is a religion and give some "logical proof" of why it is that way. Normal people wouldn't have even given this topic a moments thought if someone else hadn't brought it up. It is these people that spred this mis-information that started this whole feasco in the first place. Otherwise this wouldn't have be an issue.

The main problem that I've seen when discussing these things with laymen, is that people cannot distinguish between physics and meta-physics/science and the "meta"-science. Unfortunatly one must know what science is to have that fuzzy line become distinct.


Religion doesn't have peer review. In religion things don't/can't change extremely fast. Religion doesn't admit it's mistakes. Religious people don't have to be intellegent to be religious.

Science on the other hand does have peer review. In science things can and do change etremely fast. Science admits mistakes regularly. Scientists do have to be intellegent to be a scientist.

I could go on.


I would also like to make the statement that sociologists being sociologists don't know what science is since they've spent all there time studying sociology. One cannot read a book on "science" and think they know about it. One cannot interview scientists and think for a second that they know about the culture. One must study and live as a scientist before one can. Scientists work on a much too different level for others not in the culture to be able to interpret them (Please note that I'm not saying that this means scientists are better than anyone else. I'm just saying that they are different enough to illude analysis from those outside there culture.). Thus they shouldn't be talking about a culture that they don't understand.

Note: This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just means that different people are good at different things. The problem comes into play when different people attempt to do or understand things that they can't or are only capable of partially understanding (for one reason or another). And then since they think that they understand, they come to *incorrect* conclusions (ie science = religion).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Finally, I will end with religion

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME