The Faith & Religion mega Thread

@ntubski:Typical stuff from you, spell-checking the minor details while avoiding the substance.

As you have entered into the debate in such length, please clarify. Are you asserting that scients are humble enough to honestly admit where they are found wrong, or do you many of them react by trying to prop up their pet theories despite the facts?

Are you asserting that $1 are humble enough to honestly admit where they are found wrong, or do you many of them react by trying to prop up their pet $2 despite the facts?

There's the problem in word seven - "humble" - doesn't matter if that sentence receives "scientists theories", "preachers doctrines", or "voter party"; you've already pointed out they're all humans, and too many falsely believe that admitting past mistakes is a sign of weakness.

There's plenty of public examples of when scientists initially got something wrong, and when further experiments, new evidence, and/or greater discussion demonstrated their error they accepted it.

Originally Posted by boughtonp and too many falsely believe that admitting past mistakes is a sign of weakness.

Do you mean your own country? I am sure there is a lot to be told what UK did in past. And you still can't admit that? Exactly that's the human nature.

WTF are you on about?

I do not mean any country. I am quite clearly and explicitly referring to people admitting their own mistakes.

It should be equally obvious that I'm speaking generally, yet you've decided to try and turn it personal? I guess you must be confusing me for someone else if you think I have ever stated anything in favour of what the current or any previous UK government has done.

So who are those "too many"? Seems your own country does not fit in this "too many". Must be some others.

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

"Too many" is not some oblique reference; it means nothing other than "more than there should be".

Also, there is no "your own country". I do not own a country. (I consider that line of thinking to be flawed, and a cause of many problems). Me residing in the UK has nothing to do with any actions of the UK government, nor those of any other people inhabiting this chunk of land, nor of any other people inhabiting any other region in the world.

Anyway, this is a tangent on a tangent, I'm off to waste time more constructively with some programming.

Originally Posted by business_kid @ntubski:Typical stuff from you, spell-checking the minor details while avoiding the substance.

Well, you're right I focus on the minor details. The minor details add up to the whole.

As you have entered into the debate in such length, please clarify. Are you asserting that scients are humble enough to honestly admit where they are found wrong, or do you many of them react by trying to prop up their pet theories despite the facts?

There isn't exactly a point where a theory is "found wrong" per se. The geocentric vs heleocentric models are a nice demonstration of this where the geocentric model had more and more cases of being wrong over time (somewhat being being propped up with epicycles), and helocentric models the other way around. I think Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions was referenced somewhere earlier on in the thread, it talks a lot about this sort of thing.

Some individual scientists are more open to changing their mind than other of course. However, it's hard to see what special substance you can find in that fact. It looks like just another minor detail to me.

Originally Posted by ntubski Well, you're right I focus on the minor details. The minor details add up to the whole.

No offense but how minor?

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

I use this equation to justify why concept of team work is not correct.

I never say we should get rid of imagination or fairy tales but we should know the difference...

People are taut () things from birth, stopping them from realizing these differences...

That's why both killing someone for a bad reason and killing someone for a good reason exist!!!

When you wake up morning you may say to yourself: what a real dream I got. But the first you need to wake up. Does it minor? One-third of our own life we just dream.

Originally Posted by business_kid {@ntubski} As you have entered into the debate in such length, please clarify. Are you asserting that scients {sic} are humble enough to honestly admit where they are found wrong, or do you many of them react by trying to prop up their pet theories despite the facts?

I don't think one can generalize since we are talking about human individuals.

For example renowned scientist Fred Hoyle who did actual breakthrough work on nucleosynthesis in stars was nevertheless so utterly convinced that our Universe was Steady State (and coined the term "Big Bang" as a mocking pejorative) staunchly tried to defend his position literally till the day he died. He died in 2001 long after huge volumes of solid work of powerful evidence for an expanding, evolving Universe, even Cosmic MWB detection, quite literally a "photograph" of the Universe before matter even existed, was common knowledge.

OTOH we have Albert Einstein who at first so condescendingly denounced "The Primeval Atom" of Georges Lemaitre that he told Georges he didn't grasp the situation and that his conclusion was literally "abominable". Just a few years later he apologized and renounced his belief that the Universe was Steady State and embraced an evolving Universe starting from a single point whether one calls it "Primeval Atom", "Cosmic Egg". "Big Bang" or whatever label one prefers. The thing itself is the same.

Einstein also freely admitted that his "Cosmological Constant" was a "fudge" and he was chagrined that he had to do that.... until it became clear many years later such a thing actually exists as a property of SpaceTime. Unfortunately he wouldn't live to see it understood, even as little as it is, as Dark Energy.

So some do... some don't, and in general the more advanced ones do. It is after all a bit of a balance problem.

Since it is highly unlikely any individual will actually wade trough all 657 pages in this thread, we still needn't fear uselessness as in just in the last two pages here anyone can see examples of open-minded yet Critical Thought vs/ Sanctimonious Dogma through their own eyes. It appears to me anyone can choose which works best for them on whichever side they choose. Maybe, just maybe, a few "on the fence" may take a side.

Originally Posted by enorbet For example renowned scientist Fred Hoyle who did actual breakthrough work on nucleosynthesis in stars was nevertheless so utterly convinced that our Universe was Steady State (and coined the term "Big Bang" as a mocking pejorative) staunchly tried to defend his position literally till the day he died. He died in 2001 long after huge volumes of solid work of powerful evidence for an expanding, evolving Universe, even Cosmic MWB detection, quite literally a "photograph" of the Universe before matter even existed, was common knowledge.

Have you ever considered question how scientists obtain a funds for their research? If not try to think now. On my side: at part science is a circus. Lions, monkeys, acrobats. To give entertainment and assure constant flow of necessary resources. Say how much cost one run of CERN cyclotron? And what is benefit? Here there is a city around 100 thousands of citizens. There is laboratory. To run it (once) it is required to switch off power in half of city - for short time but nonetheless. What they do? Some electrical experiments. It is public lab. But no matter someone has to pay for all this used electricity. So we need all that circus. Because 99% of these expensive experiments usually does not makes us a 1 inch move forward. Science by itself does not offer direct benefits in short time. So what that we know that Universe is a balloon, finite etc? Maybe in coming one thousand years there will be some benefit from that knowledge - but now? Technology is also a part of that circus. For scientists promising technological marvels it is much easier to obtain fund for research. But more risky. Shortly: it is important to understand difference between science and science promotion.

Have I considered? I've lived it! Nevertheless I am also completely and painfully aware that many people are ill-informed and incredibly naive about the value vs/ cost of Pure Scientific Research.

I was 22 years old in July 1969 when we first landed men on the moon and I was utterly shocked how many people thought it was actually a waste of time and money. It certainly didn't take mere pennies. In fact it cost some 28 Billion dollars over 13 years which, adjusted for inflation, is about 10x more than that, and that is a huge sum of money...

BUT

... it was less than 2% of the Federal Budget AND aside from the purely scientific value it changed medicine, clothing, electronics, computing, communication, shipping, diet and dietary science, synthetic materials that improved everything from toys through cars to airlines. I could go on for pages since the effort completely changed who we are and what we can do and what we know. You and I would very likely not be having this conversation were it not for The Space Race. A waste?

Cern has confirmed how all matter came to be!.. how energy actually became Mass, further confirming E=MC^2... and that's just 1 experiment! The search for deep, fundamental understanding at the sub-atomic level will undoubtedly affect how power is generated and consumed, just by knowing what is possible. That alone will affect every human being on Earth not only then but forever... and again just one area of advancement while countless are more likely give the history of Pure Scientific Research.

There is way too much to know for any one person to know it all so please understand that I recognize there is no shame inherent in not grasping what Pure Science actually achieves so this is not a flame, but it is also true that you don't have the faintest conception of what Science truly is and does. You are biased against it even though you don't really know what it is. That's OK. We all must make our choices. We don't get to have it all, but perhaps it would be wiser to not assume you know more than you do... that almost everything good in your life is because of Science whether directly or indirectly and all of us tend to take if for granted... just some more than others.

If the above is not clear then please let me ask you to consider just one aspect, the percentage of deaths during childbirth just 100 years ago. I assume you value your life, the life of your parents and friends, so just imagine if more than half of them, including you, were never born or had died early. Now realize Science made it possible for those tragedies to not afflict your existence. Yes, there are downsides, too, but if you study even just History, you will likely see it a net positive.... unless you actually think you'd be better off born in 1500.

For you these money were spent reasonably. But maybe there are more important needs than sending small robot on Mars? If you are person working for minimal salary - then you may hesitate. Despite promises science does not help to resolve many important problems worldwide. I remember when first GMO food was created - bean - some people claimed GMO will end starvation. Such promises is the way for science to lose credibility. Which turns modern science in kind of alchemy promising to turn lead into gold.