WilliamBlue

Oh yeah, just to clarify, theory is all that science deals in, most of it has a lot of re-producible evidence, but none of it is written in stone (and carried off the mountain, so to speak), so your statement of;

A scientific theory = a religion

is false.

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?
Anger is like you drinking poison and hoping your enemy will die.

AB517

In this case I did not say this as a blanket statement.

However I will play along.

Some religious ideas are reproducible also.

For example:
The Ten Commandments.

Any society that runs on these notions can, and usually does, thrive.
It does not matter how you cover them up, they work.

We can pick ideas to compare that are middle ground.

For example:

How we use gravity to determine the final speed of and object that falls within a given time frame? We can also use religious ideas on how we think it is best for us treat each other so we can live together. Both can be reproducible. Yes, gravity is easier, it is physical.


Now to the extreme.

Günter’s, or what ever his name is, Inflationary theory. If you do not realize that this equates directly to some religious theories you are mistaken. This is made up to match what they see. Hmmm …sounds familiar. Are they afraid that the age of the universe is younger? Wonder why that mite be?

I am sure that we would agree on the problems with religions. Lack of change in the fact of evidence is the biggest for me.

Again, I am only pointing out how they can be loosely equated.

So Again I am correct … yet again. (sarcasm there)

Og

Science does not presuppose a rational or ordered world. Science is a way of describing correlations and relationships that is reproducible. If there are no correlations and relationships in a system that you are observing then there is no reason to think that science will have any problem describing this system as such.

The notion that it has some dogma/faith upon which it is based is silly. Science is entirely adaptable. If there is something that exists that can not be explained or interpreted by science then science must necessarily expand to include that thing. Science is built to enable that.

This is the opposite of blind faith (steadfast/dogmatic belief). The author uses silly comments such as "beyond reason" as if reason is a bound entity. Reason is a perspective from which you view the world. It is not bound any more than a rectangular coordinate system of arbitrary dimensions is bound (i.e. it is not).

This is a popular tactic amongst apologists (i.e. to call atheists/scientists dogmatic somehow). It seems very reasonable to the general populous, but couldn't be further from the truth. The author runs a "research institute" at some university where he studies the meaning of the universe and the nature of life and how it arises. He has all sorts of wrong ideas about the nature of life. Life does not arise out of non-life as he would indicate. Life is one end of a spectrum of complexity involving feedback sensory systems, control systems, and memory storage units.

Cruise control is self aware, humans are self aware... The difference is one of complexity and functionality, not one of kind of thing. The author of this article has all manner of confusions going on.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

Very true Og, science does not propose anything.

You describe science correctly, where you are misunderstanding is the difference between scientist and science. You are quite wrong when you say scientist are not “dogmatic” in someway. Scientist are people and bring with them some type of “world View” with them.

Calling cruise control self aware is a reach.
I would not call a limit switch self aware. I guess we would have to define self aware though.

WilliamBlue

Easy? Funny you should pick that one as it is probably one of the least understood, what you mention is evidence, but the theory is far from complete. As far as I know no one has a clue as to the mechanisms that actually cause gravity and I guarantee that if we have enough time it will change. The equations work but new theories are made so that they include the subset of the old equations, they must because they work(Einstein verse Newton). Even Einsteins' general theory of relativity will be replaced eventually.

I won't get into the whole religion teaches us how to live together argument as I think it is off topic, just suffice to say that I disagree, the only commandment you need is to treat others as you would like to be treated.

I just read this article about a physicist who is trying to bring back a version of the bang-collapse-bang theory of never ending universes, god how the religious hate that one

http://www.wired.com/science/discove...08/02/qa_turok

That is using the word 'loosely' very loosely

Very very loosely (I crack myself up sometimes)

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?
Anger is like you drinking poison and hoping your enemy will die.

romansh

Agreed that science per se does not presuppose a rational and ordered world; but, in practice it lives and dies by reproducibility...Fleishman and Pons comes to mind. The fact that a good portion of at least our local universe appears ordered, allows scientists to earn a living.

Had to smile at the thought of cruise control being self aware... nice one.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Og

If the universe was not rational and ordered to an extent, then there would be no scientists to earn a living. The existence of coherent entities that we call human beings requires some rationality and coherence to the universe. Without coherence, there is nothing and noone.

Cruise control IS self aware. It is necessarily self aware. If it wasn't self aware, it could never move towards a target value. It would just always accelerate. There is no requirement for defining self awareness here. Just take the words. Self Aware. Cruise control knows its current speed and modifies its behavior accordingly.

Humans are the same. We've got a bit more in the way of complexity, but the notion that the human mind requires some sort of crazy non-determinant quantum gobbledy-gook is false and just illustrates a lack of understanding on the nature of the person making the comment (i.e. the author of this article).

I would also challenge the notion that "Scientists" are dogmatic. On the whole, I believe that scientists are practitioners of science. Science is necessarily non-dogmatic.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

romansh

Regarding dogmatic scientists .... I'm with AB with this one. I'm sure they exist (depends whether they agree with me or not. ). But I agree a good scientist will temper his or her position with good evidence presented.

If the universe were not ordered to some degree and capable of being rationalized ..... I would have trouble visualizing two beings discussing anything... I suppose this what you mean by coherence.

Regarding cruise control... not disagreeing ...just smiling.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

AB517

lol, I like those last 2 points. They are right on target.

Yes, no one knows what gravity is, I was just using as a middle ground reference point. It bugs me too to no end when people use the equations to show a proof of how they know what it is.

The recycling universe thingies is ok with me, you won’t believe this, but I thought this was possible in 8th grade back in 78. I asked my science teacher if the universe collapsed why couldn’t it “miss” and fly apart again. And if this is possible could it have done it before? Are we oscillating back “down” to another big bang? I have no answers I am just a questioning fool I guess.

I think we agree on this notion. I do not know what the big deal with these ideas. Why does God have to be anything more than what God, is part of the universes, nothing more, nothing less? Why does man need more? I really do not understand this. God (the universe) loves us for what we are, why can’t we except it for what it is? That sentence is just my belief, my faith statement, no counter needed, I know its place.

AB517

I read the article.

The author is wrong when he says that we are scientist because we assume order. I do not care if it is ordered or not, I just want to know what is going on. I ask “why does it do that?” that makes me a science guy. Order just makes it easy for sure.

Og, Cruise control is NOT self aware, you and I are not using the same meaning. It is not “working” towards a goal. Please do not go running around telling the “regular folk”, as you call them, this. You definition is your definition; you need to keep it in its place. Yes if you say we do not need a definition it is … but that’s just silly.

The author’s premise is ok.
The question is the amount of over lap between the two.
Einstein died never finding his “dogmatic” quest. He did not except quantum mechanics in his lifetime even when faced with facts.

Question:
Why are we so afraid of thinking that a scientist and a priest have the same human traits?