Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087399 Posts in 72027 Topics- by 19247 Members - Latest Member: jasonsato1
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [All]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Science for Dummies  (Read 2719 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« on: Aug 27, 2017, 06:01AM »

"You're an eloquent man. It doesn't mean you're wrong. In my experience, eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles." - Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones


Since this is the religion section, and somehow science always comes up around here with religion... How does it come up? Saying religion, and faith, is wrong, and that science and validation is a better approach. Approach to what? Same basic questions... where did we come from? How did we get here? etc.

So let's look at the scientific approach...


First: why is science said to be better? It goes off of experimentation. Validation. Repetition. We can see it, test it, try it. But for these questions of long ago... we cannot do any of these.

As noted in another thread:
Quote from: timothy42b
There are theories that can be understood by nonspecialists without math degrees; the last one dates to 1847 or whenever Darwin wrote his book. 

It's not blind faith.  The eclipse did happen at 2:44 PM in my location exactly as the science predicted.  There is a pretty good track record.  But this stuff is not something any of us could verify on our own.  Well, maybe a couple of us.

Which, for the average person, means this isn't about what you can see/hear/think... but trusting in people, or trusting in God. Either way... it is trust. And any trust... is blind. It's inherent. If you could see/know/control than you aren't trusting.

At the same time...
Quote from: timothy42b
What is a bit curious is the large number of people without any math or science background who can instantly spot flaws in theories that the scientists who study them can't detect.  (I'm not putting you in that category.)  You only have to look at any evolution debate or climate debate, or for that matter vaccine debate, to see that.
A co-worker has a house built in the late 50's. Two story, A frame ranch. Fairly standard. weight is born down the sides, and center support. Except... on the bottom floor, they wanted one side to be a bit bigger, and took it out of the other. So the center wall is two feet off center. Only on that floor.

The result, is that the floor of the second story is bowed 3-8 inches.

To his wife, the house is stable. It has been around this long, and will continue.
To him, it's an issue but he doesn't know what to do about it. Best he could think is to stabilize it. But he doesn't really worry about it.
But to a buyer should he try to sell his house, it could easily be a deal breaker no matter how much they like the rest. Because, well, the fix would probably be some major rebuild, and what is to say what the rest of the impact it? Would the entire house need to be rebuilt to correct it?


Quote from: BillO
Faith, to me, is a stronger expression than confidence or trust.  Faith, like faith in God, is given without question or proof because of what God represents.  Nothing in nature can command that.  Scientists learn to build confidence slowly.  Right from the start we are expected to do experiments to show F=mA.  Everything in science is questioned, over and over again.  We don't even call something a 'theory' unless it has shown itself to be right.  Until then it gets labelled with being a mere hypothesis.

...

For instance, I no longer have to repeatedly prove F=mA via experiment.  It has earned it's right to be trusted because it has never been wrong outside of the relativistic or sub-atomic realms for nearly 400 years.  It's probably even better to say I have confidence in it, rather than I trust it.
Order changed for relevance.

In this example, I don't even need to know what F=mA is to know it has problems.

On one hand, it's considered solid. Other the other... It's like saying a software application works great as long as you avoid the places where it freezes and crashes. Just don't click that button, and it works great!

Now... a basic calculation fails in some realms? Why do we even have realms? Because one group of physics calculations and theories that work great and are "proven" over and over again... doesn't jive with another group of calculations that is also said to work great and is "proven" over and over. The fact that they don't work together is more than enough to say something is fundamentally wrong or off.

At that point... it's a matter of, do you live in the house and work around it's problem? Or are you looking to buy it?



Science very much has it's problems as well. But... if it really can't answer the basic questions for the average person.... why is it continually held up as an answer here?
Logged
Andrew Meronek

*
Offline Offline

Location: Livonia, MI
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 6929
"Justly Intoned"


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: Aug 27, 2017, 08:14AM »

Since this is the religion section, and somehow science always comes up around here with religion... How does it come up? Saying religion, and faith, is wrong, and that science and validation is a better approach. Approach to what? Same basic questions... where did we come from? How did we get here? etc.

So let's look at the scientific approach...


First: why is science said to be better? It goes off of experimentation. Validation. Repetition. We can see it, test it, try it. But for these questions of long ago... we cannot do any of these.

Why not? What's wrong with studying clues and where possible re-creating the conditions we think led to said clues to see if the ideas hold water? It sounds like you're asking how we study history and figure out anything at all.
Logged

"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."

- Thelonious Monk
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51146
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: Aug 27, 2017, 08:36AM »

Gods were created to try to explain things we didn't understand.  Why does the Nile Flood and sometimes not.  It's not related to anything we know, so there must be a Nile God who decides periodically to flood.  When we need it to flood, we can pray to the God.

Eventually we discover that the Nile floods when a certain set of conditions were met.  So now we can predict it.  This is Science.

You are getting a bit testy about F=ma.  It works great on the macro scale.  It doesn't work on the atomic scale.  But if we have a big clump of atoms, maybe a baseball, suddenly the equation works great to describe its motion.  In fact, if we tried to adapt F=ma to describe ALL motion, we'd need to introduce a bunch of additional terms, many of which are really ignorable in most cases.  This is how Special Relativity and General Relativity differ.

Science is always looking for the basic reasons for things to occur.  There are gaps in our knowledge; enough for the next 50 generations of PhD candidates.  And by the time the last of them gets his/her/its degree, there will be more gaps as we discover more things.

As to your house model, it's flawed.  We KNOW why the floor sags.  We can put some jacks underneath, hiding them in columns and the house will be as sound as ever.  May not satisfy the homeowner, but that's Science.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: Aug 27, 2017, 09:13AM »


Now... a basic calculation fails in some realms? Why do we even have realms? Because one group of physics calculations and theories that work great and are "proven" over and over again... doesn't jive with another group of calculations that is also said to work great and is "proven" over and over. The fact that they don't work together is more than enough to say something is fundamentally wrong or off.

Unfortunately I'm a little pressed for time to go into this in great detail, but the simple reason we have realms is that the universe works differently at different levels.  You could use relativistic mechanics to help design your new pitching machine for batting practice, but it would be undue work and would not provide different results.  So why bother?  The special relativistic from of F=mA (or more correctly F=dP/dt) when fully written out in it full form is a daunting sight to behold and would take up the better part of a full page.  The general relativistic from would require several pages.  But why use these for such mundane stuff as ordinary mechanical engineering when all you'll do is spend 99.999% of the time find out the most of the terms are zero under these conditions and that you'll then be left with F=dP/dt.  (BTW, F=dP/dt works for the relativistic approaches, however P in those cases is not just a simple 3-vector since both mass and displacement become dependent on velocity)

For quantum mechanics, the calculations required for macro realm solutions boggle the mind as well as any known computer system.  Theoretically it should work, but this has never been tried due to it being a currently impossible task.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: Aug 27, 2017, 09:28AM »

Science of dummies, eh?

Bob, we can do without science.  We did for the vast preponderance of our existence.  However, we have powerful minds that seek answers to questions.  Questions the religious texts cannot answer for us.

What does the bible tell us about where the sun goes at night?

What does it tell us about how the sky can be blue?

Can it answer for what reason leaves are green?

Will it give a solution as to why water turns into a solid if it gets cold enough?

These are all questions that young children ask.  If you reject science how are you going to answer them?  With the one size fits all "God made it so." response?

The writers of the bible had no clue as to how to answer to these, let alone the questions that lead to the building of your computer and the internet which allows you to see my writing.

Well, the bible does tell us God's breath is what freezes water.  I'm happy God see's fit to breath into my freezer for me, given that I don't believe he exists.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: Aug 27, 2017, 09:52AM »

Science of dummies, eh?

Bob, we can do without science.  We did for the vast preponderance of our existence.  However, we have powerful minds that seek answers to questions.  Questions the religious texts cannot answer for us.

What does the bible tell us about where the sun goes at night?

What does it tell us about how the sky can be blue?

Can it answer for what reason leaves are green?

Will it give a solution as to why water turns into a solid if it gets cold enough?

These are all questions that young children ask.  If you reject science how are you going to answer them?  With the one size fits all "God made it so." response?

The writers of the bible had no clue as to how to answer to these, let alone the questions that lead to the building of your computer and the internet which allows you to see my writing.

Well, the bible does tell us God's breath is what freezes water.  I'm happy God see's fit to breath into my freezer for me, given that I don't believe he exists.

The Lord Speaks
38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm.

He(The Lord) said:

2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
    with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
    or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
    when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
    and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
    and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
    here is where your proud waves halt’?
12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
    or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
    and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
    its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
    and their upraised arm is broken.
16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
    or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
    Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
    Tell me, if you know all this.
19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
    And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
    Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
    You have lived so many years!
22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
    or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
    for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
    or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
    and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no one lives,
    an uninhabited desert,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
    and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
    Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
    Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
    when the surface of the deep is frozen?
31 “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
    Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
    or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
    Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth?
34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds
    and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
    Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f]
    or gives the rooster understanding?[g]
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
    Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard
    and the clods of earth stick together?
39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
    and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
    or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
    when its young cry out to God
    and wander about for lack of food?



Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51146
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: Aug 27, 2017, 10:08AM »

Not a bad technological model for 2000 BC.

God is a good way to explain what we don't know.

Dusty, when you plug a special resistor (light bulb) into an electrical circuit is it God who makes light?  Or is it a glowing element (tungsten, neon, mercury vapor, or semiconductor material, depending on the bulb)?
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: Aug 27, 2017, 11:19AM »

The Lord Speaks
Yup - God made it so.  That's the one and only answer that the bible gives us.  And if mankind were satisfied with that, we'd still be living the good old bronze age life. Good!
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12313

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: Aug 27, 2017, 12:06PM »



Dusty, when you plug a special resistor (light bulb) into an electrical circuit is it God who makes light?  Or is it a glowing element (tungsten, neon, mercury vapor, or semiconductor material, depending on the bulb)?

Light bulbs obey the laws of physics.

If you follow Platinga's reasoning, that proves God exists.  If He did not, there is no reason to think the laws of physics would exist, or at least would work the same way from moment to moment.  So God need not intervene in every day life, but exists to maintain reality. 

Yeah, he's a presuppositionalist. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: Aug 27, 2017, 12:16PM »

Not a bad technological model for 2000 BC.

God is a good way to explain what we don't know.

Dusty, when you plug a special resistor (light bulb) into an electrical circuit is it God who makes light?  Or is it a glowing element (tungsten, neon, mercury vapor, or semiconductor material, depending on the bulb)?

Who made the elements? You know, copper, tungsten, etc? Man may have discovered a way to use certain elements that God created in a creative way, but how do you take God out of the equation?
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 6303

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: Aug 27, 2017, 12:22PM »


I guess BOB is arguing that the pyramid of knowledge that people before us have assembled and which we can climb without having to duplicate all their work from the lowest layer is a false thing.

If any of it is found to be faulty, then all of it must be!

But pyramids don't fall because one block is cracked.
 

And I guess BOB is arguing that continuing to work with this body of (testable) knowledge without each of us personally restarting the journey from the stone age is the same as "blind faith."  

Those astronomers could be fooling me with their lies because I've never ground out a telescope lens myself to verify it all personally!


To me, these are vapid, time-wasting arguments to engage in. These arguments are more about an endeavor to exploit the ambiguity of a broadly-deployed and multi-use label like "faith" than they are about a search for an understanding of science.


Newton said "I stand on the shoulders of giants." He didn't have to giver birth to the giants to benefit from them.
Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn


Get your Popper, Dotzauer, or Kummer play-alongs!
Andrew Meronek

*
Offline Offline

Location: Livonia, MI
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 6929
"Justly Intoned"


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: Aug 27, 2017, 12:51PM »

Who made the elements? You know, copper, tungsten, etc? Man may have discovered a way to use certain elements that God created in a creative way, but how do you take God out of the equation?


Stars.
Logged

"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."

- Thelonious Monk
nemomcnab

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Mar 21, 2013
Posts: 69

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: Aug 27, 2017, 01:22PM »

Stars.

Yeah, and those heavy elements when they get all blowed up, like novae and supernovae. Cool, and no super natural dude required.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51146
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: Aug 27, 2017, 01:56PM »

On a side note, I'm glad to see Dusty posting.  It means he still has power and has not been flooded out of his house.  Spacetown is in pretty wet shape.

We don't have any element making processes on this planet with the exception of some rather rare radioactive elements (most of which are actually man-made).  The elements are generated elsewhere.  If you refuse to believe that all those stars you see in the sky are actually nuclear fusion engines, I guess God is a good second guess.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:03PM »

When you cut through all the window dressing this line of argument ultimately boils down to defending:
 
     We don't know yet. = God did it.
 
I really suspect most of those who try to use this line of argumentation actually know better, but the argument from ignorance is appealing because it's fairly easily dressed up to appear solid (at least if you want it to appear solid and you're not too inclined to challenge it). A lot of the argumentation only works for believers, though, because they were socialized to think in the necessary way about religious ideas before they had the tools to filter what's reasonable and even rational from what's not. This is why the raise a child up in the way he should go ethic is so tightly linked to religious indoctrination in most religious franchises. In many cases it's really just a code/euphemism specifically for religious indoctrination. The fact that your religion (or your religious background) is so highly predictable based upon social geography is a pretty blatant tell on this count, and it's also a cause of great consternation for many apologists due to this obvious implication.
 
Another key problem for this line of argumentation is that it's dependent upon either ignorance or denial of how human brains work. The success of science and sound critical thinking are founded upon keeping the human brain in check--rejecting the inappropriate level of trust in it that faith requires. If the plausibility structure behind your beliefs doesn't focus on preventing us from fooling ourselves then it's seriously flawed, and presupposition and faith and such are about defending raw perceptions. This is fundamentally backwards if you're really interested in trying to understand what's real and true.
 
In fact this is a question of whether or not one can learn regarding a certain class of beliefs--sacred cows. Religion (reified) is always trying to validate raw perceptions and presumptions so that keeping them in check and the problems with failing to do so can be ignored--this is the prevention of potential learning. There's a reason for that. There's a very closely related reason I suggest that religious apologists should probably not learn too much about psychology or sociology if they want to maintain a solid sense of security in their beliefs without having to deal with the potential dissonance from high levels of compartmentalization.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:04PM »

Stars.

Novae and supernovae specifically though--the deaths of stars.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Andrew Meronek

*
Offline Offline

Location: Livonia, MI
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 6929
"Justly Intoned"


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:15PM »


Novae and supernovae specifically though--the deaths of stars.

For all y'alls who aren't sure: yes, I realize this. I just didn't think that anything more detailed was necessary at the time of that post.

Actually, from what we surmise, elements come from a few different factories: the Big Bang (hydrogen, deuterium, tritum, helium, some lithium), fusion inside of currently active stars (depending on the size of the star, there's a known chain of fusion leading up to iron), planetary nebulas, novas, supernovas, fission of unstable elements formed in those supernovas, and at a very small scale (except perhaps associated with supermassive black holes) high-energy particle bombardments from cosmic rays and curious humans.
Logged

"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."

- Thelonious Monk
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:19PM »

Who made the elements? You know, copper, tungsten, etc? Man may have discovered a way to use certain elements that God created in a creative way, but how do you take God out of the equation?

As explained previously all the natural elements but hydrogen are made in stars.  However man knows how to make elements.  It was first done in 1937.  The following is a list of man made elements.  Notice Plutonium among them.  An element man has made in large quantities.

Element - Symbol - At. No.
Technetium - Tc - 43
Promethium - Pm - 61
Astatine - At - 85
Francium - Fr - 87
Neptunium - Np - 93
Plutonium - Pu - 94
Americium - Am - 95
Curium - Cm - 96
Berkelium - Bk - 97
Californium - Cf - 98
Einsteinium - Es - 99
Fermium - Fm - 100
Mendelevium - Md - 101
Nobelium - No - 102
Lawrencium - Lr - 103
Rutherfordium - Rf - 104
Dubnium   - Db - 105
Seaborgium - Sg - 106
Bohrium - Bh - 107
Hassium - Hs - 108
Meitnerium - Mt - 109
Darmstadtium - Ds - 110
Roentgenium - Rg - 111
Copernicium - Cn - 112
Ununtrium - Uut - 114
Ununpentium - Uup - 115
Ununseptium - Uus - 117
Ununoctium - Uuo - 118

Of these Technetium, Plutonium and Americium are used fairly extensively.  In fact, if you have a modern ionization smoke detector, you have Americium in your house.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51146
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:22PM »

The age where one person can know everything (i.e Renaissance Man) has long passed.  I've yet to find somebody who knows all the vast repository of knowledge.  People can be experts in one thing, but nobody can be an expert in everything.

I guess if you don't want to accept the discoveries of others you will be constantly trying to rediscover the wheel.  Or maybe God made the wheel? :-P
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:27PM »

For all y'alls who aren't sure: yes, I realize this. I just didn't think that anything more detailed was necessary at the time of that post.
I was pretty sure--would have been pretty surprised if you didn't.
 
Actually, from what we surmise, elements come from a few different factories: the Big Bang (hydrogen, deuterium, tritum, helium, some lithium), fusion inside of currently active stars (depending on the size of the star, there's a known chain of fusion leading up to iron), planetary nebulas, novas, supernovas, fission of unstable elements formed in those supernovas, and at a very small scale (except perhaps associated with supermassive black holes) high-energy particle bombardments from cosmic rays and curious humans.
It seems I recall that nickel is a threshold element in this regard--either any elements as atomically heavy as nickel or heavier require a supernova to have been fused, or any elements more atomically heavy than nickel ... or something like that--could also have been supernovae ... ?
 
Anyway, this is why Carl Sagan used to say we're star stuff.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:29PM »

As explained previously all the natural elements but hydrogen are made in stars.  However man knows how to make elements.  It was first done in 1937.  The following is a list of man made elements.  Notice Plutonium among them.  An element man has made in large quantities.

Element - Symbol - At. No.
Technetium - Tc - 43
Promethium - Pm - 61
Astatine - At - 85
Francium - Fr - 87
Neptunium - Np - 93
Plutonium - Pu - 94
Americium - Am - 95
Curium - Cm - 96
Berkelium - Bk - 97
Californium - Cf - 98
Einsteinium - Es - 99
Fermium - Fm - 100
Mendelevium - Md - 101
Nobelium - No - 102
Lawrencium - Lr - 103
Rutherfordium - Rf - 104
Dubnium   - Db - 105
Seaborgium - Sg - 106
Bohrium - Bh - 107
Hassium - Hs - 108
Meitnerium - Mt - 109
Darmstadtium - Ds - 110
Roentgenium - Rg - 111
Copernicium - Cn - 112
Ununtrium - Uut - 114
Ununpentium - Uup - 115
Ununseptium - Uus - 117
Ununoctium - Uuo - 118

Of these Technetium, Plutonium and Americium are used fairly extensively.  In fact, if you have a modern ionization smoke detector, you have Americium in your house.

Not from scratch.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:30PM »

As explained previously all the natural elements but hydrogen are made in stars.  However man knows how to make elements.  It was first done in 1937.  The following is a list of man made elements.  Notice Plutonium among them.  An element man has made in large quantities.
 
 ... [ list of man-made elements ]
 
Of these Technetium, Plutonium and Americium are used fairly extensively.  In fact, if you have a modern ionization smoke detector, you have Americium in your house.

I'm really hoping someone creates unobtanium one of these days--at least I think I am ... though James Cameron may have rights to the name.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:33PM »

Carl Sagan also said:
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch you must first create the universe.
 
But he also knew We don't know. ≠ God did it.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Andrew Meronek

*
Offline Offline

Location: Livonia, MI
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 6929
"Justly Intoned"


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:36PM »

Carl Sagan also said:
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch you must first create the universe.
 
But he also knew We don't know. ≠ God did it.

I don't really know what the term "from scratch" means regarding creating elements. The colloquial use just kind of breaks. Starting from basic components, maybe? How basic? Do I have to invent the human cochlea before I can write a trombone sonata?
Logged

"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."

- Thelonious Monk
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:42PM »

The one thing that humans can make from scratch is a mess.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:49PM »

On a side note, I'm glad to see Dusty posting.  It means he still has power and has not been flooded out of his house.  Spacetown is in pretty wet shape.

We don't have any element making processes on this planet with the exception of some rather rare radioactive elements (most of which are actually man-made).  The elements are generated elsewhere.  If you refuse to believe that all those stars you see in the sky are actually nuclear fusion engines, I guess God is a good second guess.

Thank you! High and dry and utilities.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: Aug 27, 2017, 03:23PM »

Not from scratch.
That would not be the best approach from a efficiency perspective.  In any case, the only element that is made from 'scratch' is hydrogen.  All other's are made from it, and we can now (as of 2016) create hydrogen atoms by the condensation of a suitable electron-proton plasma.  Ta-daaaaaa!
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Radar

*
Offline Offline

Location: Rochester NY
Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 706

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: Aug 27, 2017, 03:25PM »

I think we place too much emphasis on trying to reconcile religion and science, and trying to disprove or prove God's existence with science. Religion isn't about how God created the Universe, it's about who created it, and our relationship to the creator, and to each other.  Faith isn't about proof, and we are never going to be able to prove or disprove conclusively the existence of a supreme being who guided creation in all it's glory.  
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: Aug 27, 2017, 03:28PM »


I'm really hoping someone creates unobtanium one of these days--at least I think I am ... though James Cameron may have rights to the name.
I heard the name used before it was discovered on Pandora.

BTW, the creator of a new element gets to name it.  So get at it Byron, create some unobtainiun.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: Aug 27, 2017, 03:45PM »

Faith isn't about proof, and we are never going to be able to prove or disprove conclusively the existence of a supreme being who guided creation in all it's glory.

And that's what secure faith looks like.
 
Thank you Radar.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
drizabone
*
Offline Offline

Location: Central Coast, Australia
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 1997

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: Aug 27, 2017, 05:27PM »

...

Copernicium - Cn - 112
Ununtrium - Uut - 114
Ununpentium - Uup - 115
Ununseptium - Uus - 117
Ununoctium - Uuo - 118

I'm not picking nits critically. I was interested and checked out Wikipedia and it had different info than your table.  So assuming Wikipedia is correct you missed a beat but recovered well.

Ununtrium - Uut was 113 not 114.

but anyway its been discovered now so it has a real name rather than just a placeholder. As do a few other elements in your list.

Nihonium - Nh - 113
Flerovium - Fl - 114
Moscovium - Mc - 115
Livermorium - Lv - 116
Tennessine - Ts - 117
Oganesson - Og - 118

That's all the room there is in the 7th row of the Periodic Table but there are potentially more elements but they would have to be in the next row.

And its cool to know that Flerovium should have a doubly magic isotope.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51146
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: Aug 27, 2017, 05:50PM »

Man, when I was in college the last one on the list was Lawrencium (103) :/

I think this new row will have an extra "additional" series since we now have all the s, p, d, and f orbitals.  I guess we are into g.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
drizabone
*
Offline Offline

Location: Central Coast, Australia
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 1997

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: Aug 27, 2017, 07:20PM »

My kids wouldn't have any problem putting me in the Bronze age
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: Aug 27, 2017, 07:52PM »

I'm not picking nits critically. I was interested and checked out Wikipedia and it had different info than your table.  So assuming Wikipedia is correct you missed a beat but recovered well.

Ununtrium - Uut was 113 not 114.

but anyway its been discovered now so it has a real name rather than just a placeholder. As do a few other elements in your list.

Nihonium - Nh - 113
Flerovium - Fl - 114
Moscovium - Mc - 115
Livermorium - Lv - 116
Tennessine - Ts - 117
Oganesson - Og - 118

That's all the room there is in the 7th row of the Periodic Table but there are potentially more elements but they would have to be in the next row.

And its cool to know that Flerovium should have a doubly magic isotope.

You, seems my list was out of date.  Skipped two, 113 and 116.  I guess I've got some more reading on my late.  My list is so old it did note even have the names assigned....  Can't turn you back for a minute these days.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: Aug 29, 2017, 04:30AM »

I guess BOB is arguing that the pyramid of knowledge that people before us have assembled and which we can climb without having to duplicate all their work from the lowest layer is a false thing.
Well, no.

But say... walk into a bookstore. Maybe they are dying off now, but they used to go up all of the time. Easy. Quick. What would it be to build it yourself? To create the materials for the building, build the building, create the paper, write the books... Shoot, even to create and power the lights. Far more than a person could do in a lifetime, yet the multitudes can do it in a matter of weeks. 

Same principal. There is too much science to know it alone. Most only know a very small bit and trust (or don't care about) far far more. Like the electrician that runs the wires for the store, or the plumber that sets the pipes for the bathrooms. And that's just the scientists. The public simply walks by, buys what they want when they want, with very little thought to how it got there.


So... if you're hunting for answers you can actually understand... ie know what's in it, behind it, how it works.... science really doesn't offer much more than religion. Simply too much to learn. Most is taken on trust. And trust... by it's nature... is blind.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: Aug 29, 2017, 04:39AM »

Why not? What's wrong with studying clues and where possible re-creating the conditions we think led to said clues to see if the ideas hold water? It sounds like you're asking how we study history and figure out anything at all.

Nothing wrong with them at all. But the very nature of the ideas says they cannot be testing nor recreated. The big bang, would destroy everything. Evolution... is far to slow to observe.

At best, the theories will remain untested, unproven ideas. Doesn't mean you can't try to understand them.

But if it is a problem to look to trust or faith, to take on a principal without ever being able to fully know it or prove it... saying the big bang created everything, or we evolved... these are not without those same faults.

I am religious. I accept that I cannot know all, nor do I pretend.

What I find curious, is the criticism of religion for these things, and proclaiming a replacement... that suffers from them as well.

Why do they even come up? You can reject religion without going to something else...
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: Aug 29, 2017, 04:46AM »

I think we place too much emphasis on trying to reconcile religion and science, and trying to disprove or prove God's existence with science. Religion isn't about how God created the Universe, it's about who created it, and our relationship to the creator, and to each other.  Faith isn't about proof, and we are never going to be able to prove or disprove conclusively the existence of a supreme being who guided creation in all it's glory.

Yup yup yup.

Even in the natural world... we are finding there are things much much bigger than what a single person can understand. We just aren't that smart... to understand it all. Religion says we can't. Science proves it. People pushing science say that religion has holes or problems, and thus it is not good to follow. And yet, science is also littered with holes. But science works to close them! So do theologians. But holes are inherent in religion! As well in science, or should we try to recreate the universe?

Religion is why things work. Science is how things works. So why blur the lines? Why try to answer religious questions with scientific answers?
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: Aug 29, 2017, 05:13AM »

Unfortunately I'm a little pressed for time to go into this in great detail, but the simple reason we have realms is that the universe works differently at different levels.
Elements "work differently" than compounds, which work differently from cells, which work differently from plants, which work differently from ecosystems... Yet that is only in how we view them. In reality, they all function as they function and nothing happens in isolation of the other parts/pieces.

Einstein is one of the big figures in one of your models, but even as he put the math together for that, he searched for the greater theory of everything.



The price of gas has multiple points of impact on the longevity of roads. But if you are looking only at parts... you miss the greater system.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: Aug 29, 2017, 05:17AM »

Well, no.
 
But say... walk into a bookstore. Maybe they are dying off now, but they used to go up all of the time. Easy. Quick. What would it be to build it yourself? To create the materials for the building, build the building, create the paper, write the books... Shoot, even to create and power the lights. Far more than a person could do in a lifetime, yet the multitudes can do it in a matter of weeks. 
 
Same principal. There is too much science to know it alone. Most only know a very small bit and trust (or don't care about) far far more. Like the electrician that runs the wires for the store, or the plumber that sets the pipes for the bathrooms. And that's just the scientists. The public simply walks by, buys what they want when they want, with very little thought to how it got there.
 
 
So... if you're hunting for answers you can actually understand... ie know what's in it, behind it, how it works.... science really doesn't offer much more than religion. Simply too much to learn. Most is taken on trust. And trust... by it's nature... is blind.

This is why it's appropriate to accept the tenets of science that have survived the test of time as "established science", and current research with a grain of salt. That's why, quite unlike most religious doctrine, Science (reified) doesn't claim to be certain about findings, just that the given data were produced in the given manner. It's why we take all of science with at least a small grain of salt, even if only technically.
 
So yeah, that's the right mentality. It's also not the mentality virtually any believers apply to their religious matters of faith. It's precisely the opposite mentality, which is the point--the point of both religion and science. Science is about accepting and embracing uncertainty and the intellectual humility that it imposes, and religion is about faith and affirmation and rejecting the insecurity most feel when genuinely facing uncertainty.
 
You're not suggesting anything here that's not part and parcel of Science though, you're talking about precisely why science and religion are antithetical paradigms.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: Aug 29, 2017, 05:26AM »


This is why it's appropriate to accept the tenets of science that have survived the test of time as "established science", and current research with a grain of salt.
Well no... that's why science, nor it's tenants have any place in this at all.


You're not suggesting anything here that's not part and parcel of Science though, you're talking about precisely why science and religion are antithetical paradigms.
Nor have I ever. Funny how the "science defenders" got all defensive in response to science's inability to answer religious questions. You're attacking science! By saying it is flawed? Science says that about itself. By saying it doesn't have all of the answers? Science says that by itself. So again... why keep bringing up science in response to religious discussion, as if it is the answer?


Science is about accepting and embracing uncertainty and the intellectual humility that it imposes, and religion is about faith and affirmation and rejecting the insecurity most feel when genuinely facing uncertainty.
That may be the theory, but in practice... science, by it's sheer scope these days, involves far more blind trust than religion ever will.

Meanwhile, intellectual humility is an actual tenant of christianity.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: Aug 29, 2017, 05:41AM »

This is why it's appropriate to accept the tenets of science that have survived the test of time as "established science", and current research with a grain of salt. That's why, quite unlike most religious doctrine, Science (reified) doesn't claim to be certain about findings, just that the given data were produced in the given manner. It's why we take all of science with at least a small grain of salt, even if only technically.
Well no... that's why science, nor it's tenants have any place in this at all.
You're just ignoring the whole uncertainty thing. Or rather, you're dramatically exaggerating it regarding science and dramatically minimizing it in regard to religion. Actually it's probably a better description to say you're coming at uncertainty from opposite angles when you consider religion vs. science. In the latter case you apparently need to believe it's a problem where it's not, and in the former you just seem to pretend it's not an issue when it is. This is because Science deals with empirical matters and religion relies on existing in the realm of unanswerable "questions" so it can presume to be providing "answers" to them. That's why it's always in conflict with Science as Science finds real answers, even if they may be tentative and limited and still uncertain, that expose Religion's "answers" for what they really are--presumptions ... or metaphors, but the believers who can't handle Science can't handle that obvious potential either.
 
You're talking about "questions" for which real answers can't be found (often designed that way, though likely not quite consciously) and claiming religion answers them. But you have no real validation of those alleged answers. You just choose to believe certain "answers" are true (thereby rejecting all the other "answers" for the same question--hence wildly different religions and wildly different franchises withing the same religions and all that). We can ask unanswerable questions and pretend we have an answer, but that's just faith/pretense and the Cosmos is under no obligation to appease our personal sentiments. The pretense is a refusal to accept the reality of the situation--the uncertainty.
 
Human brains don't actually provide for the certainty Religion (reified) presumes it offers--for the various "answers" various religions allege they provide their believers. At the very least it's a misuse of the term answer.
 
You're not suggesting anything here that's not part and parcel of Science though, you're talking about precisely why science and religion are antithetical paradigms.
Nor have I ever. Funny how the "science defenders" got all defensive in response to science's inability to answer religious questions. You're attacking science! By saying it is flawed? Science says that about itself. By saying it doesn't have all of the answers? Science says that by itself. So again... why keep bringing up science in response to religious discussion, as if it is the answer?
Again, Science (reified) doesn't claim or even try to answer religious (non-empirical) questions. It knows better because of its intellectual humility--its acceptance of reality and uncertainty. Religious apologists seem to generally need it to do so, but it doesn't. The problem is with the questions and Religion's presumption that it does answer them, and when our actual understanding grows and runs into religious "answers" that don't bear up under what we've actually, really learned from Science. Again, that's the point I'm making. You seem to be repeatedly arguing Science doesn't answer questions that it recognizes as non-empirical. The fact that Science doesn't deal with these questions isn't the issue, that Religion doesn't really answer them either, then refuses to accept the implications--the uncertainties--that come with it is the issue.
 
So yeah, that's the right mentality. It's also not the mentality virtually any believers apply to their religious matters of faith. It's precisely the opposite mentality, which is the point--the point of both religion and science. Science is about accepting and embracing uncertainty and the intellectual humility that it imposes, and religion is about faith and affirmation and rejecting the insecurity most feel when genuinely facing uncertainty.
That may be the theory, but in practice... science, by it's sheer scope these days, involves far more blind trust than religion ever will.
Except that Science (reified) rejects faith entirely. If you're not accepting the findings of Science tentatively you're doing it wrong. This is fundamental. If you don't (or won't) understand that, you're not even really talking about Science.

Meanwhile, intellectual humility is an actual tenant of christianity.
The appearance of it is, anyway--it's very important to appear and to feel intellectually humble while wildly presuming understanding of "questions" that can't really be answered and then dismissing a paradigm based upon actual humility which recognizes it can't presume to answer such "questions". This self-image of Religion just doesn't pass even slightly critical muster.
 
When Science (reified) is asked how it knows what it knows it can provide objectively repeatable, verifiable details and limitations.
When Religion (reified) is asked how it knows what it knows it offers faith and revelation--we just know ... we have a book we revere that says so ... if you believe as we do you can know too ... etc.
 
But you're right that Religion doesn't really need to go there--it has the option of faith. It's just that the vast majority of believers seem to need it to go there--to intellectually reject faith while requiring it for their beliefs--utterly depending upon it while pretending they're not. Many believers just accept the true nature of their beliefs. They seem to be a lot more at peace with reality in my experience. Believers who can't do this seem more angry and frustrated and contentious with reality. They put a lot of effort into strange intellectual gymnastics that only appear to work to themselves and their Home Team--oddly others aren't nearly so impressed. It get interesting (and usually amusing) when competing franchises try to argue validity in a complete vacuum of veracity. It highlights these issues.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: Aug 29, 2017, 06:16AM »

You're talking about "questions" that are defined so real answers can't be found and claiming religion answers them. But you have no real validation of those alleged answers. You just choose to believe certain "answers" are true (thereby rejecting all the other "answers" for the same question--hence wildly different religions and wildly different franchises withing the same religions and all that). Science deals with things that can be verified to the extent they can be verified and embracing the uncertainties because we have no means by which to know if "answers" really do answer the question we're asking or to what extent otherwise--we can only pretend if we need that reassurance--if we need to deny that uncertainty for whatever reason.
Well... no. How did we get here? How did it all begin? These are simple questions.

Science has no more real answer to these than religion. If uncertainty was truly as big of a matter as you suggest, than the answer of the poll in "how old the universe is?" would have been other, not billions of years. We always have uncertainty! but we're really just going to say X anyhow. Just like 60% of the population attends church every sunday.


And yet... you continue to actually avoid my questions in light of throwing out your own sentiments.

Religion and science often hit very different areas. Religion does not pretend to say How. It says who, or why. In the areas that are the biggest unknown, science has no way to prove either. It can't recreate the universe or build life in terms and periods we can understand. It's like trying to build a car, but never having that "moment of truth" of turning the key and driving it off to see if it works.

So why would science constantly come up as opposed to religion in religious questions? Unless... it is being treated as a similar faith based philosophy, and it is a comparison of one method over another...

Because really Byron, all you are talking here is not science, is not religion... it is your supposed view of "intellectual humility" with "critical thinking" and how that approach should govern our actions. Sounds an awful lot like philosophy... not science.



 

The appearance of it is, anyway
Nope... pretty inherent. Just look at the question of what is God? God is greater than we can comprehend. Welcome to REAL intellectual humility.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: Aug 29, 2017, 06:20AM »

Well... no. How did we get here? How did it all being? These are simple questions.

Heh ... awesome.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: Aug 29, 2017, 06:23AM »

Heh ... awesome.

They are, aren't they?

Inspired curiosity for thousands and thousands of years of people... We have attempted to find answers in religion, in science, in culture, in the dirt, in the cosmos... through all matters of our lives.

But the past is behind us, and nothing can bring that back again to really ever know. 
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: Aug 29, 2017, 06:59AM »

Why do they even come up? You can reject religion without going to something else...
Good question.  From what I can see comparisons between religion and science are brought up more by the religious than by the atheist.  Like creating this thread.  Personally I would try not to sully science by comparing it to religion.  The concept is preposterous.

But here is the crux of it Bob.  With science you can verify the result/prediction (yeah, you may need to learn the science to do that) with religion you can't no matter what you learn.

You also keep insisting that trust is blind, like faith, no matter how often that it is pointed out to you that trust is earned.  It is not freely given as faith is.  Experience is required for trust to exist.  Further, I think you are using the wrong word by using 'trust' when talking about science.  The better word to use for science is confidence - not trust or faith.  Trust, at least to me, can only be used where the thing to be trusted has some autonomy.  Can I give you an example of using all 3 in single situation?

This on applies more to you than to me.  Your 16 year old son wants to borrow the car to take his girlfriend to the movies.  You say yes.  You trust your son to drive safely as he has demonstrated that several times in the past.  You have confidence the car is safe to drive because you use it all the time and it gives the same expected results.  You have faith that your God will let no harm come to your son and his friend.

Can you see the difference?

Faith is for Gods and is given freely.
Trust is for other people and is earned.
Confidence is for science and technology and comes about from the science/technology giving you the same, repeatable, predictable and verifiable results over and over again.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12313

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: Aug 29, 2017, 07:07AM »


Religion and science often hit very different areas. Religion does not pretend to say How. It says who, or why.

When it says who or why it claims a very high degree of certainty. 

And in some cases it does say how, or at least rejects a scientific answer on how. Example, a substantial number of denominations reject evolution and are certain that a global flood rather than plate tectonics shaped the current Earth.  An even higher percentage rejects climate change. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: Aug 29, 2017, 07:11AM »

Einstein is one of the big figures in one of your models, but even as he put the math together for that, he searched for the greater theory of everything.
He continued to work the rest of his life on a grand unification theory (theory of everything is a misnomer).  A grand unification theory would bring together all 4 known natural forces into one model.  If it could be created, there is nothing saying that we could/would still not use different maths for dealing with different realms.  Today will have GR, SR and Newtonian mechanics.  We can show how each give the same prediction and/or breaks down to the appropriate model given the appropriate realm, so we still use all 3.  a convincing GUT will not change that.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #47 on: Aug 29, 2017, 09:54AM »

Good question.  From what I can see comparisons between religion and science are brought up more by the religious than by the atheist.  Like creating this thread.
I generally find the opposite. Most threads here concerning religion almost always devolve into science vs religion, even though they had nothing to do with science. But then, then perceptions are likely to vary from person to person, and I'm not about to count the threads of each. :)

But here is the crux of it Bob.  With science you can verify the result/prediction (yeah, you may need to learn the science to do that) with religion you can't no matter what you learn.
And when you can recreate the big bang, or watch evolution take a pool of group to a single celled critter to a multi-celled organism... sure. But the crux of it is... you can't. Now, this surely isn't applicable everywhere. I can easily perform some experiments and get results. But others... take too long or are too hazardous or violate ethical/legal standards. You are equating complex things with simple ones, and saying because the simple is easy so too is the complex.

A solar eclipse and saying whether a black hole exists in the center of a galaxy far far away both use physics... but one is easy to calculate and provable, and the other is much harder and theoretical.

It is those complex cases I am talking about. Which by your definition either calls the something other than science, or dramatically overstates what we can do to test them. And these are the same things that are often thrown up as a counter to religion.


You also keep insisting that trust is blind, like faith, no matter how often that it is pointed out to you that trust is earned.
Faith can be earned as well. Nor is it given freely. And it may be given as a result of experience. The simple reality is, if you know what will happen or are in control, there is no trust, no faith, no confidence.

Religious people often overstate their faithfulness because they consider it a virtue, and science orientated people often overstate their scrutiny and methods because they consider them virtues. The difference in truth is not all that far apart in approach. Most people don't participate in science, they just learn it. How many of the age of the universe people do you think know the calculations? Certainly not all. And most of the faithful have more faith in what they see and experience than what they don't. It's a good part of why the church killed their savior. So it goes.

This on applies more to you than to me.  Your 16 year old son wants to borrow the car to take his girlfriend to the movies.  You say yes.  You trust your son to drive safely as he has demonstrated that several times in the past.  You have confidence the car is safe to drive because you use it all the time and it gives the same expected results.  You have faith that your God will let no harm come to your son and his friend.

Can you see the difference?
In all three scenarios you have expectations, no practical control, you hope for a certain outcome, and you find out later if the situation worked as intended.

The difference, practically, is that you are attempting to use terms specifically appropriate to a concept. That's about it. You could also say you have faith that God will protect you on your drive to work, or that you have confidence you can make it there safely based on all the other times you have, or that you trust in your driving skills. 

Your distinction references the internal rationale of why you are safe, but the actual issue is the same regardless...

In all cases, you are not in control or present or directly validating/experiencing it and still hope/count on things to work as you hope/expect them to.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:05AM »

When it says who or why it claims a very high degree of certainty. 

And in some cases it does say how, or at least rejects a scientific answer on how. Example, a substantial number of denominations reject evolution and are certain that a global flood rather than plate tectonics shaped the current Earth.  An even higher percentage rejects climate change.

And psychology claims a control where there are really too many uncontrolled variables in play to begin to do so. Evolution claims a process that we can connect the dots, but not follow along a process, nor recreate because the changes span well over lifetimes of any scientists that could run a test it. And higher physics such as sting theory claims some number of dimensions, yet can't begin to say what those would be outside of their mathematical need to be for the sake of their calculations.

In these any many other instances, some certainty is inherent... in religion it is God. In science, it is that something can indeed be validated and our ability to do so. But a great deal of other certainty is not in the theory or practice, but in the person following it. A substantial number of denominations also say evolution can co-exist with their religious beliefs just fine, as they also have no problem saying there was a big bang... Because well, again, the religious scripts did not say how so much as who. And the scientific ones do not say why so much as what.

There are certainly parties on each side that find conflict with this, but there are also certainly parties on both sides that do not. Who is right? Does it matter?
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51146
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:21AM »

In many respects it does not matter.

The issue is when Science makes a discovery that a Religion refuses to accept.  The people who claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old and who convolute all kinds of things to "prove" it.

Religion is mainly useful as a guide to properly living with everybody else.  It teaches us to respect each other and to be kind to each other.  Science is not so benign; especially if you look at how Evolution works.

There are things in Science that blow my mind.  I don't understand String Theory.  The mathematics loses me at the first integral sign.  But if the guys who know what's going with it can predict real observations with it, I'm cool.  I accept the 14 billion year estimate as the age of the universe because I don't have a better one and I know the 6000 value is wrong.

Incidentally, we can model Evolution with relatively short-lived forms like fruit flies.  Scientists have watched as fruit fly traits change in response to changes in environment.

If somebody comes up with a better reason for the changes than Evolution or some flood that we seem not to have concrete evidence of, I'm all ears.  But I also reject that the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle that walks through the cosmos. :)
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #50 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:25AM »

He continued to work the rest of his life on a grand unification theory (theory of everything is a misnomer).  A grand unification theory would bring together all 4 known natural forces into one model.  If it could be created, there is nothing saying that we could/would still not use different maths for dealing with different realms.  Today will have GR, SR and Newtonian mechanics.  We can show how each give the same prediction and/or breaks down to the appropriate model given the appropriate realm, so we still use all 3.  a convincing GUT will not change that.

It's quite the presumption to say how what you don't know will impact what you do. Quite confident, without the experience or knowledge you say would be required for confidence.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:27AM »

I generally find the opposite. Most threads here concerning religion almost always devolve into science vs religion, even though they had nothing to do with science.
Like BillO I don't see that happening either. What I do see is that there's a tremendous amount of resistance from some believers whenever anyone questions religious epistemology. I can see how it might be easy to conflate science and critical thinking.
 
But then, then perceptions are likely to vary from person to person, and I'm not about to count the threads of each. :)
Ah ... go for it! We have a three day weekend coming up.
 
And when you can recreate the big bang, or watch evolution take a pool of group to a single celled critter to a multi-celled organism... sure. But the crux of it is... you can't. Now, this surely isn't applicable everywhere. I can easily perform some experiments and get results. But others... take too long or are too hazardous or violate ethical/legal standards.
Those would be mathematical models then I gather ... more highly theoretical stuff, which in science means we're looking into it to see what we can find that might refute this notion rather than this is what we believe ... we take it on faith.
 
It is those cases I am talking about. Which by your definition either calls the something other than science, or dramatically overstates what we can do to test them. And these are the same things that are often thrown up as a counter to religion.
It calls for the acceptance of uncertainty. That's not a thing in science--not a problem at all. It's a state in which we exist--fundamental to human nature. Religion generally has a far greater issue with uncertainty, as in, often it just doesn't accept it.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #52 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:35AM »

Like BillO I don't see that happening either.
Well... you are so infatuated with your epistemology you miss quite a lot really.

Those would be mathematical models then I gather ... more highly theoretical stuff, which in science means we're looking into it to see what we can find that might refute this notion rather than this is what we believe ... we take it on faith.
Yes... like the big bang theory, which is formed of and supported by calculations. And how much are those all really looked into? As BillO said in another thread: "However, this repeated success in their predictions does not give us any right to put faith in them, but it does allow us to build a confidence in them.  When they have never proved wrong repeatedly we begin to stop verifying them through other means each time we use them."

Science can't progress unless at some point it takes some things as assumptions and moves on. The more complex, the more assumptions.

 
Religion generally has a far greater issue with uncertainty, as in, often it just doesn't accept it.
Except for all of the numerous places it does... Though you seem to regularly dismiss those. Likely the result of an observation bias. Which is the fault of the person, not the approach they follow.
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:36AM »

It's quite the presumption to say how what you don't know will impact what you do. Quite confident, without the experience or knowledge you say would be required for confidence.
Yes, it is isn't it?  Well, it's actually not a real stretch.  Any new theory MUST agree whit the old theories where their results are correct.  Just like several pages of GR beaks down the F=dP/dt where Newton's equation gives the correct result.  You see, we've been down this path many, many times before.  If what ever becomes 'The GUT' does not agree with newtons 2nd law when dealing with the motion of a, let say, soccer ball, then it is wrong and we go back and try again.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:39AM »

Yes, it is isn't it?  Well, it's actually not a real stretch.  Any new theory MUST agree whit the old theories where their results are correct.  Just like several pages of GR beaks down the F=dP/dt where Newton's equation gives the correct result.  You see, we've been down this path many, many times before.  If what ever becomes 'The GUT' does not agree with newtons 2nd law when dealing with the motion of a, let say, soccer ball, then it is wrong and we go back and try again.
Unless the reason those other theories haven't been able to work as a GUT before is because there is something off, and they need to adapt. Which, yes... the road is well travelled. And if they were all correct, they should conceivably work as one now...
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:40AM »

In many respects it does not matter.

The issue is when Science makes a discovery that a Religion refuses to accept.  The people who claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old and who convolute all kinds of things to "prove" it.

Religion is mainly useful as a guide to properly living with everybody else.  It teaches us to respect each other and to be kind to each other.  Science is not so benign; especially if you look at how Evolution works.

There are things in Science that blow my mind.  I don't understand String Theory.  The mathematics loses me at the first integral sign.  But if the guys who know what's going with it can predict real observations with it, I'm cool.  I accept the 14 billion year estimate as the age of the universe because I don't have a better one and I know the 6000 value is wrong.

Incidentally, we can model Evolution with relatively short-lived forms like fruit flies.  Scientists have watched as fruit fly traits change in response to changes in environment.

If somebody comes up with a better reason for the changes than Evolution or some flood that we seem not to have concrete evidence of, I'm all ears.  But I also reject that the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle that walks through the cosmos. :)
Good! Good!
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:45AM »

I generally find the opposite. Most threads here concerning religion almost always devolve into science vs religion, even though they had nothing to do with science.
Like BillO I don't see that. What I do see is some believers getting very defensive whenever reasonable standards of epistemology are applied to religious claims. It's similar, but it's critical thinking, not science. They do overlap though--science uses critical thinking, religion maneuvers around it. So it seems like science and critical thinking are the same thing sometimes, but it's more about epistemology. The problems arise when believers want others to derive the same sense of validation from maneuvering around critical thinking as they do adhering to it.
 
But then, then perceptions are likely to vary from person to person, and I'm not about to count the threads of each. :)
Go for it! We have a three day weekend coming up ... eh?
 
And when you can recreate the big bang, or watch evolution take a pool of group to a single celled critter to a multi-celled organism... sure. But the crux of it is... you can't. Now, this surely isn't applicable everywhere. I can easily perform some experiments and get results. But others... take too long or are too hazardous or violate ethical/legal standards. You are equating complex things with simple ones, and saying because the simple is easy so too is the complex.
And how do religious claims about the world and the cosmos stand up under those same standards?
 
A solar eclipse and saying whether a black hole exists in the center of a galaxy far far away both use physics... but one is easy to calculate and provable, and the other is much harder and theoretical.
Exactly. This is why Science(reified) separates degrees of certainty and never presumes to quite reach 100%. What would be the equivalent of much more theoretical (technically I think it would be more accurate to say hypothetical here though) in religious doctrine and why?
 
It is those complex cases I am talking about. Which by your definition either calls the something other than science, or dramatically overstates what we can do to test them. And these are the same things that are often thrown up as a counter to religion.
Except that Science isn't claiming anything beyond the evidence--it doesn't say we should just believe in more hypothetical aspects of science. They're accepted as hypothetical even if there's pretty good reason to think they probably do represent reality pretty well.
 
The crux here seems to be about accepting vs. denying uncertainty.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:47AM »

Unless the reason those other theories haven't been able to work as a GUT before is because there is something off, and they need to adapt.
Well, no.  They work where they work and that's pretty much it.  If the new theory is to be accepted it must agree with these others where they have demonstrated they work, or it will not be accepted.  This is a fact.

GR, SR and Newton's laws all work as a set.  As I said before, once you do the math for each situation they simplify out.  If you are mad enough to apply GR to find the acceleration due to kicking a soccer ball, you will see, as you do the math, it will just simplify out to F=dP/dt.

It is suspected that QM will to, but we can't, at this point in time, do the math.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7139
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: Aug 29, 2017, 12:21PM »

I'm sorry Bruce, but it sits on the backs of elephants who stand on the giant turtle while it swims through the universe!
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: Aug 29, 2017, 12:34PM »

I'm sorry Bruce, but it sits on the backs of elephants who stand on the giant turtle while it swims through the universe!

I thought there was something amiss about that one.
 
Good to see why my instincts were squirming ...
 
Bruce was just talking crazy ... heh.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #60 on: Aug 29, 2017, 01:23PM »

I'm sorry Bruce, but it sits on the backs of elephants who stand on the giant turtle while it swims through the universe!
Your both wrong, It's on Atlas' shoulders!
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: Aug 29, 2017, 01:31PM »

Your both wrong, It's on Atlas' shoulders!

It all comes down to presuppositions, doesn't it.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #62 on: Aug 29, 2017, 01:38PM »

Well, no.  They work where they work and that's pretty much it.  If the new theory is to be accepted it must agree with these others where they have demonstrated they work, or it will not be accepted.  This is a fact.

GR, SR and Newton's laws all work as a set.  As I said before, once you do the math for each situation they simplify out.  If you are mad enough to apply GR to find the acceleration due to kicking a soccer ball, you will see, as you do the math, it will just simplify out to F=dP/dt.

It is suspected that QM will to, but we can't, at this point in time, do the math.

Interesting.

Never heard of a take on science/math before where everything known is considered a set and fully works, and what is to come must flow with that. Regardless of them not fully working together at different levels or realms. Just the sentiment that what is known is positively correct and what is to come must treat it that way...

Interesting.

Heck of a confidence there.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51146
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: Aug 29, 2017, 01:48PM »

If Model 1 works in Condition A and Model 2 works in Condition B but they don't overlap, we know our models are incomplete.  Need for more research.

But if I'm in Condition B, I'm going to use Model 2 while if I'm in Condition A I'm going to use Model 1.  If I'm on the border, I'll try both and see what works best.

Science creates models to describe occurrences and then tries to figure out exactly how the models work.  Newton didn't start by postulating the existence of Gravity.  He started with observations on falling objects and tried to come up with a rule that explained them.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #64 on: Aug 29, 2017, 01:58PM »

The issue is when Science makes a discovery that a Religion refuses to accept.  The people who claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old and who convolute all kinds of things to "prove" it.

Meh, as you say "In many respects it does not matter." Those that say the earth is only 6,000 years old often have no need to deal with how old the earth is anyhow. Those who say it is older... often have little practical application for that either.

I accept the 14 billion year estimate as the age of the universe because I don't have a better one and I know the 6000 value is wrong.
In which case, why is it even worth saying the universe is 14 billion years old?

Incidentally, we can model Evolution with relatively short-lived forms like fruit flies.  Scientists have watched as fruit fly traits change in response to changes in environment.
Yes and no... very simplistic example that doesn't model much really. Honestly ecoli and resistance is a better example, but that can easily just be a survival mechanism.

If somebody comes up with a better reason for the changes than Evolution or some flood that we seem not to have concrete evidence of, I'm all ears.  But I also reject that the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle that walks through the cosmos. :)
In this case, evolution actually has much more practical impact across the field of biology... so it's a bit more difficult to say "why bother"... but the relevance is rather limited to that field. Does it matter that Bubba doesn't support it?

Overall, as a society... our world is filled with technology and fancy whizz gadgets and information that races around the world, but our concepts and ways of talking are still very rudimental and ego-centric. I come back to the example of "up". If you say look up, instantly we know what you are saying... however conceptually, there is no up or down... simply away from or towards a mass of gravity. And we learned about the earth being round, what, 500 years ago? Gravity is now a kid's book with an apple falling on newton's poorly drawn head.

Seems a bit odd to say that we don't need to care about very fundamental concepts such as that... but everyone must get on board with scientific theories so complex that the response to being to understand them is to go take graduate courses...




ps. should note, per up and the earth being round... there are still people that fully believe otherwise. And they can still be quite productive members of society... even if flat wrong on the basics such as that.
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #65 on: Aug 29, 2017, 04:25PM »

Just the sentiment that what is known is positively correct and what is to come must treat it that way...

Interesting.

Heck of a confidence there. ,
You have a really odd way of looking at things.  If something is right, it's well, right.  I'm not sure how you don't get that.

Let me try one more time, then I have to move on.

If Newton's 2nd law says it takes 1 N of force to accelerate 1 kg of mass at a rate of 1 M/s2 ... and it actually does ... and it's actually correct for anything going up to, hmmm let's say, 30 kM/S and as far way from the Sun as Earth.  Well, if your new GUT gets a substantially different answer under those conditions then it's wrong, because we know Newtons 2nd law is correct.

So, where would you need to use SR?  Well, if the 1 kg of mass was traveling at 300 kM/S WRT the observer the error in Newton's 2nd law would be about 1 in 1 Million.

Where would you need to use GR?  If the 1kg mass was at Venus' orbit from the sun the error in Newton's 2nd law would also be about 1 in 1 Million.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #66 on: Aug 29, 2017, 05:57PM »

You have a really odd way of looking at things.  If something is right, it's well, right.  I'm not sure how you don't get that.
Likely because of two things...
1. I don't understand the concept of "right" in this context. I understand, it gets the result I want. That said, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
2. I work in systems and models and components every day. Complex ones. And frequently, given tech pushes these days... have to join them together, or work on a larger system, but one module at a time. Many of these modules work fine, but as they are maintained or developed... small changes happen. Some, no big deal. Easy peasy and done. Others... require a drastic rewrite/reorg. Now... when the latter happens, the functionality is still often similar or the same... but how it gets there... very different approach.

Now... I know I like to keep it simple when I talk, but truth is... I'm probably somewhere in the top 5% of programmers, though it becomes a bit hard to say where due to my self teaching. I handle issues like this on a regular basis. And from what you're telling me... my approach works! Any greater system must respect my approach! Well... no. Any greater system might need to get numbers similar to yours, but your approach is irrelevant. The other common problem with related systems that can't come together into one, is that they are so focused on their individual components and how they do things, they can't see a bigger picture. But that often happens, and often because they are created small to large, not large to small...

Otherwise... you talk about the margin of error as if that's small? That seems big enough to indicate something's off...

But that's just me.

My experience in complex systems tells me they aren't finished while there are still known problems, and the longer a problem is out there... the more it suggests it is a big problem rather than small, and require a approach change rather than a quick adjustment.
« Last Edit: Aug 30, 2017, 04:33AM by B0B » Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: Aug 29, 2017, 07:40PM »

You have a really odd way of looking at things.

You can be very kind sometimes Bill.
 
It's an endearing quality.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: Aug 29, 2017, 07:42PM »

Meh, as you say "In many respects it does not matter." Those that say the earth is only 6,000 years old often have no need to deal with how old the earth is anyhow. Those who say it is older... often have little practical application for that either.

But it most certainly does matter in terms of responsible and even reasonable civics, and being good neighbors and all that. Ultimately that's the Real Issue™.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
drizabone
*
Offline Offline

Location: Central Coast, Australia
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 1997

View Profile
« Reply #69 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:07PM »

Your both wrong, It's on Atlas' shoulders!

Nah, you're all wrong.  Its turtles all the way down!
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: Aug 30, 2017, 04:18AM »

Nah, you're all wrong.  Its turtles all the way down!
Oooooo! good song!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gBV-Nzq7Pg

"I've seen Jesus play with flames in a lake of fire that I was standing in
Met the devil in Seattle and spent 9 months inside the lion's den
Met Buddha yet another time and he showed me a glowing light within
But I swear that God is there every time I glare in the eyes of my best friend
Says my son it's all been done and someday your gonna wake up old and gray
So go and try to have some fun showing warmth to everyone
You meet and greet and cheat along the way
There's a gateway in our mind that leads somewhere out there beyond this plane
Where reptile aliens made of light cut you open and pull out all your pain
Tell me how you make illegal something that we all make in our brain
Some say you might go crazy but then again it might make you go sane
Every time I take a look inside inside that old and fabled book
I'm blinded and reminded of the pain caused by some old man in the sky
Marijuana, LSD, Psilocybin, and DMT
They all changed the way I see
But love's the only thing that ever saved my life
So don't waste your mind on nursery rhymes
Or fairy tales of blood and wine
It's turtles all the way down the line
So to each their own til' we go home
To other realms our souls must roam
To and through the myth that we all call space and time"

Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #71 on: Aug 30, 2017, 04:26AM »

But it most certainly does matter in terms of responsible and even reasonable civics, and being good neighbors and all that. Ultimately that's the Real Issue™.

Only if in turn, you feel that religious folk should press their religion on you every chance they get. Because as much as you view it is responsible civics for your to preach your philosophy, so too do many evangelicals call it the same to preach theirs.


Which comes back to the initial point... why counter religion with science, or science with religion? Each are their own respective concepts, rarely contradictory, and rarely relevant to each other. As much as people go with the flow in science, such as Bruce saying 14 billion years is better than 6,000, many too do the same with religion. Well, if the principals are good anyhow, what's the downside to claiming God?

Seems like most just want to take to conversation to areas they are familiar with... for religious, it's religion. For science folk, it's science.
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12313

View Profile
« Reply #72 on: Aug 30, 2017, 05:00AM »

Well, if the principals are good anyhow, what's the downside to claiming God?

 

Is there a downside to denying God, if He's real?  Sure.  The harm is probably limited to one person at a time though.

Is there a downside to denying climate change, if it's real? 

For some weird reason, "claiming God" has come to include denying substantial parts of science. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: Aug 30, 2017, 05:25AM »

The issue is when Science makes a discovery that a Religion refuses to accept.  The people who claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old and who convolute all kinds of things to "prove" it.
Meh, as you say "In many respects it does not matter." Those that say the earth is only 6,000 years old often have no need to deal with how old the earth is anyhow. Those who say it is older... often have little practical application for that either.
But it most certainly does matter in terms of responsible and even reasonable civics, and being good neighbors and all that. Ultimately that's the Real Issue™.
Only if in turn, you feel that religious folk should press their religion on you every chance they get. Because as much as you view it is responsible civics for your to preach your philosophy, so too do many evangelicals call it the same to preach theirs.
Do you really think that's the only scenario in which it matters (I mean in the context established of course)?
 
But I don't disparage those who try to evangelize out of genuine concern for their fellow humans (rather than for self-affirmation). I appreciate the sentiment even. If they did so every chance they got it would clearly be counterproductive in that sense though, and would be a pretty strong indication it would be about their own need for affirmation. So you're arguably at least slightly right, but you have how the appropriate motivation would generally manifest all wrong--seems more like you're trying to score a point for the Home Team in as ideologically hostile a manner as you can (breaking out that silly, off scale ruler yet again).
 

Which comes back to the initial point... why counter religion with science, or science with religion?
It's about responsible/functional epistemology, which is largely about being very vigilant to take measures that counter human brain owners' natural inclination to fool ourselves. This is how science works, and it's the opposite of how faith works (though that's being redefined, which is a good thing ... a very good thing).
 
Each are their own respective concepts, rarely contradictory, and rarely relevant to each other.
NOMA, eh? That's quite arguable, at best.
 
As much as people go with the flow in science, such as Bruce saying 14 billion years is better than 6,000, many too do the same with religion. Well, if the principals are good anyhow, what's the downside to claiming God?
Civically, likely none ... assuming the principles are good. That's a pretty freakin' huge "If" there! What good people who are believers believe and say and do fits well into this apologetic, but what ugly minds believe and say and do often doesn't. When I was a believer I was probably even less inclined to try and give the Dark Side of Our Nature such a clear pass.
 
Seems like most just want to take to conversation to areas they are familiar with... for religious, it's religion. For science folk, it's science.
No, it's about appropriate, responsible, consistent standards. That's where pretty near all the contention and clashes tend to be.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #74 on: Aug 30, 2017, 05:38AM »

Otherwise... you talk about the margin of error as if that's small? That seems big enough to indicate something's off...
That's at 300 Km/S - compare that to the the moon missions that went at 11 kM/S - that's the fastest man has ever gone.  I'm sure when we get our spaceships going 300 kM/S we'll break out the SR and won't have a problem.  As for me, nothing in my life has a relativistic error greater 3x10-13 so I'm not going to worry about it.  I'll just keep using Newton's 2nd law.

Done with this subject - on to the next.

So Bob, what's this thread really all about?  Are you saying science is useless?  That we should just forget about it and live like they did in the bronze age Levant?
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #75 on: Aug 30, 2017, 06:48AM »

If they did so every chance they got it would clearly be counterproductive in that sense though, and would be a pretty strong indication it would be about their own need for affirmation.
 
...

It's about responsible/functional epistemology. ... It's about appropriate, responsible, consistent standards. That's where pretty near all the contention and clashes tend to be.
It would be clearly counterproductive... All in all, very little difference between your approach, and a evangelical who consistently demands you follow religious principal and beliefs at every turn. You continually insert your own needs in a conservation and demand it be about your approach and your way. Also, spot on per the need for affirmation. 

Because... if you look around... the only one talking about epistemology... is you.

Have fun.  Hi
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #76 on: Aug 30, 2017, 07:02AM »

So Bob, what's this thread really all about?  Are you saying science is useless?  That we should just forget about it and live like they did in the bronze age Levant?
Not useless at all. We have quite a number of things through science. Though... there are times I look at the amish and wish for a slower, simpler life. I just can't deal with the heavy religious control of that approach, unfortunately.

That said, science often has very little answer for religious questions. At best, there are complex theories that cannot be really tested and take years and years of study to understand, much less practice in.

Which means basically...

 - God created the universe!
 - No, the universe started with the big bang. (which actually is not a contradiction, nor rules out God actually causing this big bang...)
 - What the heck is the big bang?
 - A big explosion that started everything.
 - You're gonna have to explain that...
 - You would have to go to school for years to understand.
 - You calling me stupid?
 - No, it's just very complex. We have to study and calculate and test...
 - You can test the creation of the universe?
 - In pieces and small parts...
 - so... no then.
 - Science is important!
 - Phooey. God is good. That is all.

Which often results in insults and divisions. Somehow, me not buying or respecting theoretical science that has no application to me is taken as an insult and me saying all science is bad. And I can certainly say, if you tell many country folk around me.... you'll need years of schooling to understand, that comes off as an insult as well.

Meanwhile, these ideas
a) don't actually contradict each other
b) neither is fully testable
c) neither is really applicable in most life situations

So why bring up one in response to the other at all really? What is the application of bring up science in a religious discussion, or religion in a science one... aside from say Byron's obsession with preaching his particular philosophy, or an evangelical preaching theirs? Overall... seems much more effective to focus on practical implications of either as they are relevant and leave the high theories out of it. I'm sure some obscure religious event way back when is likely to get non-religious eyes to roll, and if someone tells me there is 26 dimensions, but can only recognize 4 of them... I'm only going to laugh. But religion does often have very good morals and ethics per social order, and science has many practical benefits for technology.
Logged
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #77 on: Aug 30, 2017, 07:38AM »


 Are you saying science is useless?  That we should just forget about it and live like they did in the bronze age Levant?

Science is useless in regards to spiritual matters. Would you use your scientific Volt-ohm meter to trouble shoot your plumbing?

I thought that open minded liberals, etc, always bragged about having shades of gray, and not being 'binary' in its approach to things, yet all I see here on these topics is 'binary' conclusions. Howz that?

Are you really suggesting that people who may disagree with you want to live like they did in the bronze age? Really? Is that how open discussion goes?


Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #78 on: Aug 30, 2017, 08:01AM »

And I can certainly say, if you tell many country folk around me.... you'll need years of schooling to understand, that comes off as an insult as well.
It is not intended as an insult.  Well, how do you resolve this then?  How can you explain things when it really does take years of schooling to understand?

Your a programmer, right?  How would you go about explaining inter-process communication techniques to a lawyer?  Or give him the layman's explanation of stateful packet inspection and how that relates to secure network communications?  Or the algorithms a real-time operating system uses to determine process run-time slices?  Or what strategies massively parallel systems use to vectorize code for the most efficient and expedient processing?  For every answer you give him he'll have another 3 questions.  At some point you'll just have throw up your arms and tell him you can't give him your 30+ years of education and experience so he can understand this stuff and that he'll just have to take your word for it or go and get a similar education.

I'm just not sure how to take your comment here.  Either you are being completely arrogant assuming you and your country buddies should be able to understand theoretical physics, or you think physicists are simpletons and their subject is trivial and everyone should be able to understand it all in a few simple sentences.

If that's the case, why don't you ditch your keyboard and your country buddies get down off their tractors and the lot of you go invade the ivory towers of theoretical physics.  It's such simple stuff and top guys can make 7-figure salaries.  Just stop by Toy "r" Us on the way and pick up some of those pop-up physics texts, I'm sure you'll have all down pat by the time you pull up to the university parking lot.

 Yeah, RIGHT.


Utter rubbish.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #79 on: Aug 30, 2017, 08:12AM »

Science is useless in regards to spiritual matters. Would you use your scientific Volt-ohm meter to trouble shoot your plumbing?

I thought that open minded liberals, etc, always bragged about having shades of gray, and not being 'binary' in its approach to things, yet all I see here on these topics is 'binary' conclusions. Howz that?

Are you really suggesting that people who may disagree with you want to live like they did in the bronze age? Really? Is that how open discussion goes?



I have no idea what you're ranting about Dusty.  I don't use science to answer religious questions, and I don't bring up science as an alternative to religion.  I am totally disinterested in the answers to religious questions.  I use science as a tool to model nature and provide useful information and predictions about it.

The discussion was going nowhere.  I feel Bob believed he could attack science by using his typical technique of refusing to accept answers to his queries and doubling down with other slightly different questions, as usual.  We got precisely nowhere because my initial answers were correct.  I just ended up repeating over and over again in different ways and words hoping he would get it.  He probably does, but he's just being ... Bob.

I still don't have a clue what this thread is about.  Read the thread.  Do you have a clue what Bob's aim was?
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #80 on: Aug 30, 2017, 08:16AM »


You can be very kind sometimes Bill.

Sometimes I think I over do it.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: Aug 30, 2017, 08:52AM »

The discussion was going nowhere.  I feel Bob believed he could attack science by using his typical technique of refusing to accept answers to his queries and doubling down with other slightly different questions, as usual.  We got precisely nowhere because my initial answers were correct.  I just ended up repeating over and over again in different ways and words hoping he would get it.  He probably does, but he's just being ... Bob.

It's basically an evasive filibuster strategy of "discussion".
 
I guess it's affirming if you can manage such levels of selective perception.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51146
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: Aug 30, 2017, 09:08AM »

I personally don't have a problem with religion until it starts to claim veracity of scriptural texts that we have clearly ascertained to be inaccurate.

I find it difficult to think that a Deity worked with King James in the 1600s to make a perfect translation of the Bible into English.  It's a noble attempt and fairly accurate to the original text, but the veracity of that one is also suspect.  We don't fully accept the works of Thucydides and those were written some 1000 years later.

If our space program actually finds an enclave somewhere that God and his retinue are working from, I'm all ears.  If they do a new calculation and the age of the Universe is only 5 billion years, I'm fine with that.  But I have a problem with somebody claiming the stars are actually simply very small orbs near the Earth.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Andrew Meronek

*
Offline Offline

Location: Livonia, MI
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 6929
"Justly Intoned"


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: Aug 31, 2017, 03:47PM »

In which case, why is it even worth saying the universe is 14 billion years old?

Because it's mind-blowing?

Or, if you're a pragmatist and care nothing about natural wonder, because that follows from several very practical technologies that we use every day, like GPS, global timekeeping, and making accurate measurement masters (like the Kilogram masters)
Logged

"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."

- Thelonious Monk
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: Aug 31, 2017, 03:58PM »

Because it's mind-blowing?
 
Or, if you're a pragmatist and care nothing about natural wonder, because that follows from several very practical technologies that we use every day, like GPS, global timekeeping, and making accurate measurement masters (like the Kilogram masters)

What are you doing man!
 
Don't think it through!
 
Just go with what sounds good for your agenda.
 
If you think it through it might ruin the whole thing!
 
 ... particularly if your agenda isn't especially rational.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Bruce the budgie

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 1, 2013
Posts: 276
"A burp is not a grace note."


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: Aug 31, 2017, 04:34PM »

The overwhelming majority of cars, busses, trucks, trains, ships and planes still motivate themselves by burning petroleum fractions. The geologists hired by the oil companies to find that stuff might not care about the the universe being fourteen billion years old, but the evidence for that age comes from the same style of inquiry that led to their model of the earth being about four and a half billion years old. The Carboniferous period, when the precursors of our present fossil fuels were laid down, was more recent than that, by their reckoning, but it's still part of the same big picture. It seems silly to ask which parts of that picture aren't important.

How many pebbles can be taken away from a pile of gravel before it isn't a pile any more? How old are those pebbles? How long can you leave a batch of concrete in the mixer before annoyance and regret set in? Is there a bright line between speculation and practicality, and if so, where is it?
Logged
ronkny

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11368

View Profile
« Reply #86 on: Aug 31, 2017, 07:54PM »


What are you doing man!
 
Don't think it through!
 
Just go with what sounds good for your agenda.
 
If you think it through it might ruin the whole thing!
 
 ... particularly if your agenda isn't especially rational.
Wow! You must be really popular.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51146
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: Aug 31, 2017, 08:11PM »

Wow! You must be really popular.

Easy, boy.  Just because he's being an idiot doesn't mean you have to as well.

Let's just contribute to the conversation.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: Sep 01, 2017, 11:12AM »

The overwhelming majority of cars, busses, trucks, trains, ships and planes still motivate themselves by burning petroleum fractions. The geologists hired by the oil companies to find that stuff might not care about the the universe being fourteen billion years old, but the evidence for that age comes from the same style of inquiry that led to their model of the earth being about four and a half billion years old. The Carboniferous period, when the precursors of our present fossil fuels were laid down, was more recent than that, by their reckoning, but it's still part of the same big picture. It seems silly to ask which parts of that picture aren't important.

How many pebbles can be taken away from a pile of gravel before it isn't a pile any more? How old are those pebbles? How long can you leave a batch of concrete in the mixer before annoyance and regret set in? Is there a bright line between speculation and practicality, and if so, where is it?

The selective inconsistencies are what stand out most to me, rather than just the lack of insight--it's when the insight is evident but then opted out of for certain cases. Even that's not so much of an issue without the sense of entitlement (majority privilege--to validate which we also have the persecution delusion on top of it all) that tends to come with this selective use of epistemic standards--it starts to mimic a bully mentality, and I've never tolerated bullies well.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Bruce the budgie

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 1, 2013
Posts: 276
"A burp is not a grace note."


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: Sep 01, 2017, 12:44PM »

Willful ignorance yanks the rug out from under attempts at shared understanding. A big part of that comes when the willfully ignorant try to use domineering styles of discussion. Is that a fair paraphrase of what you just said?

Poe tells us that it's not easy to tell the difference between a troll and an ignoramus; intent (or insight) is notoriously difficult to prove.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: Sep 01, 2017, 01:15PM »

Willful ignorance yanks the rug out from under attempts at shared understanding. A big part of that comes when the willfully ignorant try to use domineering styles of discussion. Is that a fair paraphrase of what you just said?
Quite.
 
More than that though, I'd say it's a more focused application.
 
I realize it's a Thing, but still it's always kind of bewildering how it seems to fly under the radar for so many, being such a malignant mentality. It's as if certain dog whistles or catch phrases/trigger terms and such have to be present before it's officially okay to notice the insult to honesty and integrity. And I suspect this game, and the fact some are playing it quite a bit differently than most, has a whole helluvalot to do with the current state of societal health in the US.
 
Poe tells us that it's not easy to tell the difference between a troll and an ignoramus; intent (or insight) is notoriously difficult to prove.
Yeah, but is there really any functional difference between lying and self-serving intellectual negligence? Why would it be reasonable to give either a pass?
 
 --
 
PS ... finally picked up some Lakoff stuff--absolutely awesome! A lot of what I've read so far is a clear distillation of cloudy ideas that I've had floating around in my mind for a while (particularly the different family models for morality--very clear in conservative vs. progressive churches--and the fact that language is both a strong indicator and influence regarding how we think-very apparent in churchspeak), but Lakoff nails them down, takes them much further, corrects/redirects my missteps, and provides the data support ... but of course I'm not dependent upon metaphor in my thinking or language myself ... heh. I'll probably end up reading just about everything he and Daniel Kahneman have written in relatively short time. Thanks for the recs!
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Bruce the budgie

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 1, 2013
Posts: 276
"A burp is not a grace note."


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: Sep 02, 2017, 10:14AM »

... finally picked up some Lakoff stuff--absolutely awesome! A lot of what I've read so far is a clear distillation of cloudy ideas that I've had floating around in my mind for a while (particularly the different family models for morality--very clear in conservative vs. progressive churches--and the fact that language is both a strong indicator and influence regarding how we think-very apparent in churchspeak), but Lakoff nails them down, takes them much further, corrects/redirects my missteps, and provides the data support
That pretty much parallels my take on Lakoff. My first exposure was Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, whose title comes from an aboriginal Australian language's use of grammatical gender, and how such categories reveal underlying cognitive wotsits. At first, the bits about prototype theory (e.g. when asked to name a bird, people mostly go for common passerines such as robins or sparrows, not penguins or emus, and certainly heaven forbid not cassowaries, even though they are undoubtedly members of Aves) and embodied cognition as it relates to conceptual metaphors grabbed me more than the political stuff did. But, yeah, A NATION IS A FAMILY leads to some interesting ideas.

... but of course I'm not dependent upon metaphor in my thinking or language myself ... heh.
Yes, well, about that...

Seriously, it needs to be repeated that conceptual metaphors are a neurological thing, built and used mostly below the threshold of awareness. They are not the literary metaphors taught in school.
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12313

View Profile
« Reply #92 on: Sep 03, 2017, 09:54AM »

That pretty much parallels my take on Lakoff. My first exposure was Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, whose title comes from an aboriginal Australian language's use of grammatical gender, and how such categories reveal underlying cognitive wotsits.

There's a bit on language and what we can learn from it in a fascinating book I'm reading now:
Everybody Lies, Big Data, New Data, what the internet can tell us about who we really are,
by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz.

He's a researcher who's been able to extract meaning by mining the results of google searches, etc.  He has some new conclusions about the liberal vs conservative leanings of media, about racism, and lots more. 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01AFXZ2F4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Logged

Tim Richardson
Bruce the budgie

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 1, 2013
Posts: 276
"A burp is not a grace note."


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: Sep 03, 2017, 12:50PM »

There's a bit on language and what we can learn from it in a fascinating book I'm reading now:
Everybody Lies, Big Data, New Data, what the internet can tell us about who we really are,
by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz.

He's a researcher who's been able to extract meaning by mining the results of google searches, etc.  He has some new conclusions about the liberal vs conservative leanings of media, about racism, and lots more. 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01AFXZ2F4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I found a review of it in the Grauniad. Get the kids out of the room before bringing it up on the screen.  Evil
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12313

View Profile
« Reply #94 on: Sep 04, 2017, 08:55AM »

Yes.  Pornhub gave him their search data.  Porn searches are anonymous so theoretically people are more honest than in a survey.

Logged

Tim Richardson
Bruce the budgie

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 1, 2013
Posts: 276
"A burp is not a grace note."


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: Sep 04, 2017, 09:26AM »

I was thinking of the title he wanted to use at first, something like

How big is my
?


p.s. I see my local extended library system has a couple dozen copies. Might be something to settle in with on a winter or autumn evening. My inner grumpy cynical old coot wonders about the demographic and performance biases introduced by only working with data coming from the web, but I can't say until I actually read it, n'est-ce pas

I don't get tired of sounding off about Lakoff, though. As the Quakers say, he "speaks to my condition."

Word used to be that the main equipment a linguist needs is empty shoeboxes, to fill with index cards noting specific examples. Nowadays a searchable database can be carried around on a thumb drive.
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #96 on: Sep 04, 2017, 09:37AM »

Yes.  Pornhub gave him their search data.  Porn searches are anonymous so theoretically people are more honest than in a survey.


Science for dummies?  Pornhub?
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [All]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: