Oh and BTW hazel, as you've likely already surmised, I like sundialsvcs, too

Nice try Hazel to weave religion into science - people were put to death in gruesome manner by the god squad for suggesting our planet was not flat. Others like Darwin were quite sure that invoking religious notations would safeguard his ass from the god squad.
Religion was and still is used to keep the stupid stupid. I mean how can you fall for the Swaggart trick twice - OMG

ps Think ancient Greeks measured the diameter of our planet quite accurately with a few bonfires and poles of fixed length at waters edge - Heretics. The Largest library in the known world at Alexandria was torched by the Romans and Archimedes skewered. However those North Africans of science brought their knowledge and wisdom across Africa and into Spain - so do not get carried away by western religious twaddle with claims of grandeur and glory to...

While it does seem that much of the modern reaction of Anti Science is founded in fundamentalist religions, Andy-1, and it took the Vatican 300 years to even apologize to Galileo (as if he would know) it most certainly isn't as simple as assuming religion, even Organized religion, is inherently the enemy of Science.

Most of the scribes that kept knowledge (and LITERACY!) safe during the Middle Ages and before were monks. Not long after the turn of the 20th Century, when the Pope exclaimed that Georges LeMaitre's Cosmic Egg Theory "proves God's Creation" Georges reportedly replied that he should confine himself to scripture and leave Science to scientists, with apparently little fear of being burned at the stake. I think there needs to be tolerance and above all communication between Science and Religion as neither is likely to disappear anytime soon. The lines just need to be clearer between belief and logic.

What you should do is ban any sort of free speech on any subject that some group of academia claims to be fact.

Friend, let's simply agree that "we are different in our thinking." (Yet we continue to enjoy our conversations(?).) I think that my previously-expressed opinion actually has nothing(!) to do with that.

My comment, simply, is that "a good scientist should never be entirely sure." And, "this sword is intended to have two edges." One edge favors consensus while the other favors the scientific ... "one who thinks different." The fellow-scientists who jump upon your idea and try to beat it into submission are not being "personal."

Aside: "Science" operates within an agreed-upon philosophical context, with additional contexts built beyond that. But my "in a glass, darkly" comment was intended to suggest that there may be other "legitimate realms of human inquiry" beyond all of these. "Science" operates within boundaries, and derives much of its strength precisely from this. "Scientific philosophy" is an accepted but also-bounded expansion. "But there might well be more."

However – "enough of that." I don't want to lead this thread too far off-topic. We have other threads for that. (See you there ...)

This is a wry joke, right? Nobody has yet proposed any sort of banning. Actually I think it is instructive and useful to see agenda-ridden views or those we assume are agenda-ridden or just stupid. Free Speech is the single most important right any individual can have, IMHO. If all we see is what we agree with, what's the point? Stagnation?

Wasn't any conversation on covid banned? We all had to take the shot and march goose step? Pretty sure actual professional doctors were being denied their opinions.

Jefro, first off, what has that to do with this thread? If it's because you think Science was behind the conversation bans, it wasn't. That was politics in what was at the very least perceived as an emergency. Science was involved, but only in the creation of the vaccines, which work and at better rates than previous vaccines involving live virus strains. The distribution of the vaccines had nothing to do with Science beyond the knowledge that General Welfare is best served by the favorable odds possible with vaccines, but it was left to individuals to research their personal odds and choose. Choices have consequences but nobody had to "goose step".

You have every right to your personal opinion but that right comes with the responsibility to do due diligence in calculating your odds and accepting the results like an adult, right?

Just to keep it light I'll leave you with a twisted quote -

Actually, that's pretty close to what I'm on about in this thread. Scientists and engineers built JWST precisely to correct soft conclusions and make them better, for the body of knowledge to evolve. My complaint is with people who look for anything they can find, interpret or outright lie about to point at Science as a failure because it DOES evolve which means either giving up or fundamentally altering previously held views. Most people want "Readers Digest" answers all neatly packaged and wrapped up in a bow. That was far more likely when dealing with the Physics of the common ordinary Earthly realm and even that on only the human scale. Things outside of one's human frame of reference are much harder to study, learn, or accept and like any "new ground" some false steps are bound to happen. That doesn't dismiss exploration as useless or failing when it finds a path that doesn't pan out. Again, "Not A" describes "A" almost as much as "A" does.... it just takes a whole lot more of it.

That's a well-known popular fallacy and I'm surprised to find anyone still putting it forward. Only uneducated Christians ever believed that the earth was flat, and certainly the Church never taught such a thing. St Augustine once wrote that there was nothing more offensive to the Christian faith than ignorant Christians making statements about the natural world that every educated man of his time knew to be false.

Before the Keplerian revolution, the belief held by almost everybody, whether Christian, Muslim or pagan, was that the earth was a motionless sphere at the centre of the universe with the sun and moon and the other planets revolving around it, embedded in concentric spheres that moved at different speeds. An outermost crystal sphere held the fixed stars and also provided the daily 24-hour rotation of the whole system. It was rather a magnificent system and allowed planetary movements to be predicted with high accuracy. In fact it was the science of its time, and that is why the Church accepted it despite the absence of any confirmatory texts in the bible.
And do you think those North Africans had no religion? They were fanatical Muslims, but they had absorbed from Aristotle and Ptolemy the model of the geocentric universe that Christians also believed in. However they had better astronomical instruments than most Christians did, so their model was more accurate.

That is one of the problems in today's society, with so much misinformation thrown out there, it is hard to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Yes, choices have consequences like being discharged from service unless ... https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...an-now-rejoin/

Of course, one can argue that "nobody had to "goose step"" and that one chose not to earn a livelihood by not taking a vaccine.

Only thing I am sore about is step ladder related fixing wind damage.


It makes me tired too. The click bait stuff. Annoying is all it is to me.
Does not get book marked or the attention it wants from me.

Science is science. Religion is religion. Sensational drivel which is waste of time I grant you. Beats climbing a step ladder and wrestling sheet metal.

Winds last all day now.

You do understand that living in a society comes with reciprocal responsibilities, right? Your right to earn a living (which incidentally is by and large possible because of that society's economic standards... location, location, location, right?) doesn't eclipse others' right to stay alive. I grant you that many over reacted not realizing that, at least at first, the main seriously at risk were older folks with preconditions like simple obesity BUT over reacting has proven to be a wiser choice than under-reacting to sudden threats.

However I do urge you and anyone else so inclined to create your own thread if you wish to discuss political issues instead of Science issues like what this thread is about.

There have been a few documentaries suggesting that people are ignoring science. And willfully ignoring the problem that brought it about.

We are told that something is "Science". Why don't you listen to the "Science".

That depends on if you are talking about actual fact based science, or religion being called science, or political agenda being called science.

Example1: Bouncing a laser off of a mirror left on the moon by Apollo, measuring the time it takes for the light to get there and back, C is constant, therefore getting a real precise distance from earth to moon. That is Science.

Example2: Telling us that boys can be girls because they say so?? That's not science, that's agenda driven politics being called science.

Example3: Archaeologists saying that if they find something in a dig, other than what they want to find, they will ignore it. Because it does not fit what they want to find. Ok that's not science that's religion.

Side note:
The bible reading ones did not. It tells us that the earth is a circle, curved, or sphere, in multiple places.

One reference would be Isaiah 40:22, Strongs H2329. (khoog) (circle, circuit, compass.)
In the LXX it is Strongs G1135.1, (guros)(Curved) Similar to the greek word for woman.

Another would be Job 22:14

Of course it was the Roman religion that did it's best to keep the bible away from the people. An example of religion, not Christianity.