220d
@KellyJay saidHumans are fallible. We sometimes believe things which we later find out are not true. That does not vitiate the claim that we know things. It simply means that we keep on testing and gathering evidence. The people who are most likely to fall into undetected error are those who think that everything has already been settled and won’t critically examine their beliefs in light of subsequently available evidence.
Error can be undetected and totally go unnoticed ruining what we think we know due to our bad assumptions. You can setup an experiment and not realize your setup isn’t perfect or in your setup of the experiment variables are added or left off that were required. A tool may not be properly calibrated, an offset maybe in error, and your math is spot on so you think your calcu ...[text shortened]... t on changing parameters because it has to be, thus says the Lord gold standard only applies to God.
219d
@moonbus saidIt should be the most important question you could ask, not being interested only reveals that you don't care if reality is shaped the way you think it is, you are happy with what you think and don't want to be disturbed. Our language is immaterial but it carries meaning the whole point of language is meaning. I like some things that Aldous Huxley has said which I think applies.
Chicken or egg questions are not interesting.
― Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays, Vol. II: 1926-1929
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
"Reality cannot be ignored except at a price; and the longer the ignorance is persisted in, the higher and more terrible becomes the price that must be paid."
219d
@moonbus saidIn light of that you accept scientism is a bad idea, useful, but mere so if we take it with a large grain of salt so to speak?
Humans are fallible. We sometimes believe things which we later find out are not true. That does not vitiate the claim that we know things. It simply means that we keep on testing and gathering evidence. The people who are most likely to fall into undetected error are those who think that everything has already been settled and won’t critically examine their beliefs in light of subsequently available evidence.
Scientism is the belief that science is the only source of knowledge about the world and that it can explain all aspects of reality.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121965
219d
@KellyJay saidEver heard of something being “peer reviewed”?
Error can be undetected and totally go unnoticed ruining what we think we know due to our bad assumptions. You can setup an experiment and not realize your setup isn’t perfect or in your setup of the experiment variables are added or left off that were required. A tool may not be properly calibrated, an offset maybe in error, and your math is spot on so you think your calcu ...[text shortened]... t on changing parameters because it has to be, thus says the Lord gold standard only applies to God.
All scientific research is documented and experiments are verified through relocation of methodology and results.
By comparison and in contrast, your religious assertions are not open to being tested and challenged, you personally are intellectually closed and therefore exposed to repeated and compounded error. Your strategy for dealing with such scrutiny and challenge is to bury your head in your dogmatism.
@KellyJay saidWe do not need to know whether a chicken came first or an egg came first in order to understand the basic laws of genetics. That is the beauty of science. We do not need to speculate about origins in order to understand the laws of chemistry, physics, and genetics, because these laws have not changed in the last 14 billion years.
It should be the most important question you could ask, not being interested only reveals that you don't care if reality is shaped the way you think it is, you are happy with what you think and don't want to be disturbed. Our language is immaterial but it carries meaning the whole point of language is meaning. I like some things that Aldous Huxley has said which I think app ...[text shortened]... er the ignorance is persisted in, the higher and more terrible becomes the price that must be paid."
You quoting Huxley is deeply ironic. The heavy price you’re paying for ignoring deep time is that you not only don’t understand how science works, you don’t understand the Bible either. You read the Bible as if it were a geology textbook. It isn’t. It does not explain how the universe came to be. It’s an exhortation to treat people morally, couched in a pseudo-historical allegory.
219d
@moonbus saidIf you are unaware of the foundations of the beginning you can make the current system anything you want to call it. It is no different from human history if you ignore it you can make anyone who you dislike the enemy or friend the past will not matter. You are only looking at a snapshot of time and think you understand the whole, not very wise!
We do not need to know whether a chicken came first or an egg came first in order to understand the basic laws of genetics. That is the beauty of science. We do not need to speculate about origins in order to understand the laws of chemistry, physics, and genetics, because these laws have not changed in the last 14 billion years.
@KellyJay saidOur orbital telescopes can look back in time to within a few hundred million years of the Big Bang, when hot plasma cooled off enough to transmit light. Comparatively, that spans a stretch of time going back to within a few seconds of the total age of the universe. I wouldn’t call that “a snapshot.”
If you are unaware of the foundations of the beginning you can make the current system anything you want to call it. It is no different from human history if you ignore it you can make anyone who you dislike the enemy or friend the past will not matter. You are only looking at a snapshot of time and think you understand the whole, not very wise!
You’re the one who’s living in a snapshot, stuck in the year 325 A.D. when people did not have the foggiest idea about chromosomes, electromagnetism, or the age and size of the universe.
Moreover, as I have said many times before, the laws of physics don’t change. We don’t need to know how everything began in order to understand how the laws of physics are operating now.
@moonbus saidI call that looking through a telescope. Also, it doesn't give any insight into the beginning.
Our orbital telescopes can look back in time to within a few hundred million years of the Big Bang, when hot plasma cooled off enough to transmit light. Comparatively, that spans a stretch of time going back to within a few seconds of the total age of the universe. I wouldn’t call that “a snapshot.”
You’re the one who’s living in a snapshot, stuck in the year 325 A.D. when ...[text shortened]... need to know how everything began in order to understand how the laws of physics are operating now.
219d
@KellyJay said
If you are unaware of the foundations of the beginning you can make the current system anything you want to call it.
Nonsense. Science does not propound theories and explanations higgeldypiggeldy, "anything they want." Explanations and theories are continuously tested and re-tested for compatibility with observed phenomena. Those which aren't compatible with observed phenomena are modified or discarded.
218d
@moonbus saidYou are making grandiose assumptions on incomplete information and pat yourself on the back doing it.
@KellyJay said
If you are unaware of the foundations of the beginning you can make the current system anything you want to call it.
Nonsense. Science does not propound theories and explanations higgeldypiggeldy, "anything they want." Explanations and theories are continuously tested and re-tested for compatibility with observed phenomena. Those which aren't compatible with observed phenomena are modified or discarded.