Human Race and Earth Endangered by New Strain

[table1349]

What you all don't realize is the one true fact is that none of this exists. You, me, none of this. We and all of this, everything we believe that we perceive is nothing more than a speck of time in the dream of some being that is unknown to us, the non-existent products of that dream.

Now take your science, your faith, your what ever, and disprove that theory to the satisfaction of all of the non-existent entities in this non-existant world traveling in this non-existant universe.

 

[table1349]

So....am I supposed to take the Red pill or the Blue one?

 

[unpopular]

There are two points on the "faith in science" argument. One is the argument that I proposed - that all observations are indirect, and we rely on faith to accept that observations are fundamentally accurate. This kind of "faith in science" I don't mind - because it' really "faith in everything", and science can be thought of as the study of these indirect observations.

But even this starts to break down if you accept that mathematics is a fundamental property of nature. Though this too can be debated.

The other point on "faith in science" is something that I wholly reject - the assumption that science is fact without any attempt to understand on any level the propositions that science makes. This makes science into a religion, and scientists are some sort of infallible prophets. It's one thing to assume that scientists are more likely to be correct about something than you are - for no other reason than they've spent more effort than you can on the subject. But it's an entirely different thing to say that scientist MUST be right, for no other reason than it's "science".

Many armchair atheists will take this position. They will often talk about how they believe in facts, but do not bother to understand on any fundamental level what those facts actually are.

 

[unpopular]

And yes. The dilation of time on fast-moving objects has been measured and must be compensated for in order for things like GPS to function properly.

 

[unpopular]

What you all don't realize is the one true fact is that none of this exists. You, me, none of this. We and all of this, everything we believe that we perceive is nothing more than a speck of time in the dream of some being that is unknown to us, the non-existent products of that dream.

Now take your science, your faith, your what ever, and disprove that theory to the satisfaction of all of the non-existent entities in this non-existant world traveling in this non-existant universe.

Unprovable theories are unscientific.

That's something I love about science. When the going gets tough, they just call foul.

(this is a principle in philosophy, but I forgot what it's called)

 

[pgriz]

The thing about "science" is that you can never prove a theory, but you can disprove it. Our understanding of things is always approximative, and by necessity, reductive. Despite the fact that matter as we know it is made up of rather basic components, there is an emergent complexity when large numbers of simple things are involved. We, as a species, aren't very good at understanding, or managing complexity. Perhaps the next level of evolution will result in brains that are able to cope with that higher level of complex inter-relationships, because we certainly struggle with that.

 

[Fred Berg]

It is not "faith" in science.

It is "I think, if I drop a feather and a hammer in a vacuum, they will fall at the same rate because there will be no air resistance to slow the feather down."

*Do the experiment*

"Yes, the theory of air resistance is correct because we can see it to be correct".



You're a photographer. Your camera works because of the progression in the understanding of how the world and universe works. Cameras are based around light - arguably one of the most fascinating scientific subjects. There is no faith involved in how your camera works. It is real.

And as for your train anecdote - time slows down for the train relative to that of an observer. Not for the train itself. For the train itself, everyone else's time slows down relative to that of the train. This is known. And every GPS accounts for this effect to calculate your position on the globe.

What is known though really? Only that corrections and adjustments are necessary in the devices that are used to record or measure time as it is understood, to account for a phenomenon which is not. The real question here remains unanswered, possibly even unasked: What is time?

 

[Fred Berg]

So does time really slow down on those trains travelling at light speed then

Yes, time dilation has been confirmed to be true.

But I think you misunderstand my intent. You, and others on this thread, are believers: you have faith in science.

No, we don't join hands on Sundays singing about how gravity is real in our own echo-chamber to try to convince each other that it's true in spite of tons of actual factual evidence against it. Same goes for the rest of science, which is just confirmation of the observable facts that surround us all, you included, like it or not. Some people just look a lot deeper into things than others to discover and confirm the truth about things you apparently can't even imagine, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

If you can disprove any accepted scientific theories, you should jump right on that and win yourself a Nobel Prize.

If you can show me, or anyone, even a grain of proof which speaks against the things that people gather to observe on Sundays, Fridays, or Saturdays then I'll be delighted to consider it.

My point about Newton's apple wasn't to question gravity, but to show that when something won't quite fit there is a tendency to a priorii theorising in science, which is all well and good until this becomes accepted as though it were a posteriori proof.

By the way, Buckster, you may want to consider the difference between evidence and proof.

 

[unpopular]

By the way, Buckster, you may want to consider the difference between evidence and proof.

I do not know if this is in reference to time dilation of moving objects, but:

Hafele Keating experiment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, regardless if this is a result of relativity or not, things do appear to take longer when traveling through space.

 

[Buckster]

If you can show me, or anyone, even a grain of proof which speaks against the things that people gather to observe on Sundays, Fridays, or Saturdays then I'll be delighted to consider it.

This common fallacy by believers to try to shift the burden of proof from the believer to the skeptic doesn't work.

If I claim there are invisible pink poodles with gills who live at the bottom of the ocean and care deeply about your sex life, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

If I claim there's an invisible blue dragon who breathes invisible heatless fire sitting on my shoulder right now, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

If I claim there's a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between Venus and Earth right now, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

The same is true for all claims; The burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the skeptic.

 

[Fred Berg]

If you can show me, or anyone, even a grain of proof which speaks against the things that people gather to observe on Sundays, Fridays, or Saturdays then I'll be delighted to consider it.

This common fallacy by believers to try to shift the burden of proof from the believer to the skeptic doesn't work.

If I claim there are invisible pink poodles with gills who live at the bottom of the ocean and care deeply about your sex life, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

If I claim there's an invisible blue dragon who breathes invisible heatless fire sitting on my shoulder right now, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

If I claim there's a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between Venus and Earth right now, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

The same is true for all claims; The burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the skeptic.

But it was not me who brought in this type manoeuvring to the discussion, but rather that was you:

No, we don't join hands on Sundays singing about how gravity is real in our own echo-chamber to try to convince each other that it's true in spite of tons of actual factual evidence against it. Same goes for the rest of science, which is just confirmation of the observable facts that surround us all, you included, like it or not. Some people just look a lot deeper into things than others to discover and confirm the truth about things you apparently can't even imagine, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

If you can disprove any accepted scientific theories, you should jump right on that and win yourself a Nobel Prize.

 

[Fred Berg]

It may be time for some to look again at what I wrote in my original post. Read it well, consider it word for word: they were chosen very carefully. Remember also that it was written as a comment on the linked article, so if you haven't read that and considered what it is about, then the time to do so would be now.

What I have noticed is that there has been a common misunderstanding of my meaning; this is clear enough to see in the regrettable, semi-personal, anti-religious undertone in the responses. This is typical behavior, though, by those who feel their strongly held views, assumptions and beliefs are being challenged. They will strike blindly at what they perceive as the threat: people with strong religious convictions often hit out at scientists because they feel undermined by progress, whilst people who are convinced that scientific elucidation has freed society from superstitious activity are inclined to pour scorn and ridicule on religion because in spite of everything, people still cling to their old customs.

My point was, and is, that there is little to choose between science and religion: they work in much the same way, as do their followers. Besides, they are not mutually exclusive and both serve a purpose in society. Religion needs miracles and science needs theories. You pays your money and you takes your choice, either way you'll be sixpence none the wiser.

 

[Buckster]

If you can show me, or anyone, even a grain of proof which speaks against the things that people gather to observe on Sundays, Fridays, or Saturdays then I'll be delighted to consider it.

This common fallacy by believers to try to shift the burden of proof from the believer to the skeptic doesn't work.

If I claim there are invisible pink poodles with gills who live at the bottom of the ocean and care deeply about your sex life, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

If I claim there's an invisible blue dragon who breathes invisible heatless fire sitting on my shoulder right now, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

If I claim there's a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between Venus and Earth right now, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

The same is true for all claims; The burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the skeptic.

But it was not me who brought in this type manoeuvring to the discussion, but rather that was you:

No, we don't join hands on Sundays singing about how gravity is real in our own echo-chamber to try to convince each other that it's true in spite of tons of actual factual evidence against it. Same goes for the rest of science, which is just confirmation of the observable facts that surround us all, you included, like it or not. Some people just look a lot deeper into things than others to discover and confirm the truth about things you apparently can't even imagine, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

If you can disprove any accepted scientific theories, you should jump right on that and win yourself a Nobel Prize.

Literally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence supporting the scientific theories you question as "cobbled together" exist, and more are being discovered, revealed, and shown every day by the people investigating them. Those people are called scientists, and that's their job.

While there is no "obligation" to believe a claim nor to disprove it, in science, anyone who CAN disprove one of those theories with overwhelming evidence like that instantly wins fame and fortune in the scientific world, including Nobel prizes, so testing those theories is constantly going on. The fact that those theories continue to withstand those many tests over time lends even more credence to them. That is why I suggested that if you really think they're "cobbled together" (without actual evidence) then you should get in line with 10,000 others trying to disprove them, and win a Noble if you can really pull it off.

Here's where the rubber meets the road: No scientist says, "I claim that "X" is true. I have no proof, no evidence, nothing to support it, not even a mathematical equation. I just pulled it out of my butt last night after too much heroin and pizza. If you cannot disprove what I've just now claimed, you must accept it."

That's essentially what you're saying though when it comes to those beliefs that take place outside of scientific study; Beliefs that involve the supernatural and have no proof or evidence at all - only claims. You're saying that's all they need are the claims, and that the skeptic has some obligation to disprove those claims, or they remain viable.

But they don't.

Any claims without evidence are on the same footing as the claims without evidence about invisible pink poodles, invisible blue dragons, or teapots in orbit, as examples. They don't require being disproved by anyone to remain unbelievable. They can be waved away and dismissed with a laugh, at least until such time as credible evidence from the claimants of any of them is presented, examined and tested.

They are very much different from the scientific theories that have tens of thousands of pieces of evidence that continue to withstand scrutiny and testing.

Now, it's about time to recognize that this thread is headed into Lock-Land as it gets deeper and deeper into religion, which is a no-no here at TPF. I've been trying my best to avoid going there, but it's getting more difficult with each new round of posting. If I stop replying, it's because I'm going to try to avoid breaking that rule. It doesn't mean I don't have a reply, just that I'm not going to voice it here. Feel free to PM or email me if you want to continue the conversation deeper into religion.

 

[BananaRepublic]

In a two man enter one man leaves Thunderdom style fight to the death scenario who would win, Science or Religion.

 

[Buckster]

My point was, and is, that there is little to choose between science and religion: they work in much the same way, as do their followers. Besides, they are not mutually exclusive and both serve a purpose in society. Religion needs miracles and science needs theories. You pays your money and you takes your choice, either way you'll be sixpence none the wiser.

Let's test that theory.

Say you order two large pizzas with everything to satisfy the hunger of several friends who dropped in unexpectedly. Twenty minutes later there's a knock at the door and there's a guy standing there with his vinyl bag that keeps the pizzas warm for the delivery.

He pulls the first box out and hands it to you. You can feel the heft and the warmth and smell the pizza inside it. You turn and hand it to someone else, and they rush off to open the box so the guests can start digging in.

The guy pulls out the second box and hands it to you. It feels unusually lightweight, like an empty box - there's no heft to it. It's not warm, and smells like an empty box instead of a pizza with everything. Curious, you open it up and see no pizza. It looks JUST LIKE an empty box.

The guy at the door says, "That's fifteen bucks apiece, so your total is thirty bucks."

You say, "but I only got one pizza, not two. This box is empty." and you show him the box. He says, "No, there's a pizza in there. You just can't see it because it's an invisible, weightless pizza. Just trust me and take my word for it - it's there."

Are they really the same? Are they really equal? Are you really going to say that the one with no actual evidence of a real pizza is the same as the one that you and your guests can actually see, feel, smell and taste?

Do you "pays your money" or not?