|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2005 : 14:50:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Anyways, when one says that spacetime itself expanded faster than lightspeed, what is that speed relative to? Some kind of absolute-like backdrop upon which space-time exists?
Good question. I've never claimed to be a cosmologist.quote:
Another question: With the big bang hypothesis as described above, is there a maximum redshift expected with the theory?
The redshift of "things" at the time of the Big Bang itself would be infinite, if we could see them. The redshift of the cosmic microwave background is about 1,089.quote:
Yes. Tagging things with names like 'gas' is convenient and practical, but it seems to me that in other cases it could dampen the skeptical spirit.
For instance: An apple falls to the ground and a boy asks why. The answer comes back swift and sure: "Gravity". Whew, soleved that one. But of course why or how does gravity even exist?
That's what scientists do, but not everyone has an interest in being a scientist. There are even many people who find science abhorent, as it tends to demolish some cherished beliefs.quote:
Furthermore when we discover new phenomena that can't seem to be explained by existing known principles, we invent more tags like "dark matter" or "dark energy". But when does it stop?
But those aren't just labels, they actually express ideas, laws and theories.quote:
Occam's razor seems to be getting duller and duller in a universe that appears to defy the simple explanation.
Only a simple version of Occam's Razor gets dulled like that. The real thing is as sharp as ever, allowing us to compare theories with equal explanatory power.quote:
Will we soon be introducing a principle called the "life intiation and organization principle" as another tag to 'explain' the biological life phenomenon which one day we well may find is not explainable with the known laws of physics?
Until such a time - if it ever comes about - abiogenesis research will be going strong, as it is now.quote:
I guess what I'm saying is this: It doesn't hurt that much to come up with new 'laws' which seem to be required as time goes on. And it satisfies the mind with the *appearance* of an explanation. So is it such a transgression if someone decides and believes that the ultimate explanation for all those laws is God himself. I mean, what's one more Tag? :)
That particular "tag" is the end of exploration. "God did it" brooks no further investigation. It terminates science, with extreme prejudice.
Welcome to the Skeptic Friends Network. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 16:04:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So is it such a transgression if someone decides and believes that the ultimate explanation for all those laws is God himself. I mean, what's one more Tag? :)
You fail to consider a simple concept like, oh.... evidence.
Of which there is exactly zero for any god.
The way you state your argument makes it sound as if scientists just run around and arbitrarily label things without regard for evidence. Quite a convoluted little piece of self delusion you have going there, actually.
Welcome to the SFN.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 19:08:32 [Permalink]
|
Apologies to Dave for getting sidetracked.
quote:
But this is largely of interest only to philosophers of science and stoned college kids.
What are skeptics but a type of philosopher? I'd certainly think that figuring out how to escape the Cavern of Socrates would be in the interests of people who want to strip away all the bunk.
quote:
...and doesn't even bother to think that it might not be "real,"
THAT'S why science can be a religion. For the lay man who has no reason to believe that science really does what it advertises besides the fact that it works most of the time. Of course, ask him if meteorology is good science, the lay man would probably say, "No, the weatherman is always wrong" People are taking science as fact without any reason to do so besides practicality.
quote:
I agree completely, but it's important to distinguish between humans failing to do science properly, and failures of science itself.
Well, lacking evidence of ET, I'm not really sure you can separate science from humans. You can't do science without humans, if you see what I'm saying. Sure, the abstract concept of science is different, but again it comes to the fact that in practice its intertwined. I will concede that science as an abstract concept is a good thing and would perform as advertised, but we aren't going to get around the people at this point. My one professor used to warn us students to expect "stodgy old Ph.D's to stomp all over your doctorite" regardless of the quality.
quote:
Axioms are all we have, at the bottom of things. Even "I think, therefore I am" contains unstated assumptions.
And that doesn't bother you as a skeptic? Don't you want to get RID of all the assumptions? Especially the unstated ones?
quote:
ystem of laws which codify "minimally polite" behaviour among diverse peoples
But if there is no Truth to support being polite, why shouldn't we act like the animals from which we evolved? |
 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 20:23:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
People are taking science as fact without any reason to do so besides practicality.
False. Even is you disregard parcticality so easily, you are still wrong. Science is a method by wich we uncover and examine facts. If they withstand the scrutiny then we give them some degree of "truth".
And nobody is saying that science doesn't try to answer the hard questions. In fact, using science we have uncovered more evidence to support some claims (of answers to the hard questions) than any other method has given us in the past.
quote:
But if there is no Truth to support being polite, why shouldn't we act like the animals from which we evolved?
If you are implying that behaving like animals means being devoid of the inclination to assist others of your species, taking steps to support communal living, and working together for the benefit of the community.... you are, again, woefully incorrect.
I can site you four examples, off the top of my head, of phyla (that have multiple species) of single celled protists that live communally and work to support the community. This behavior extends upwards to a very large number of animal species as well. Communal/cooperative behavior is strongly selected across multiple kingdoms of living organisms.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 02:26:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But if there is no Truth to support being polite, why shouldn't we act like the animals from which we evolved?
Actually, the animals (primates) that we evolved from lived in societies rather like the chimpanzees and gorillas, or even baboons of today. These all live in tightly knit groups with rules of behavior as strict as any of our own. This holds true for any, social species, be it apes or ants, or hyenas.
Which shoots down the tired, old "without religion there can be no morality" claptrap.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 05:54:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
But if there is no Truth to support being polite, why shouldn't we act like the animals from which we evolved?
Actually, the animals (primates) that we evolved from lived in societies rather like the chimpanzees and gorillas, or even baboons of today. These all live in tightly knit groups with rules of behavior as strict as any of our own. This holds true for any, social species, be it apes or ants, or hyenas.
Which shoots down the tired, old "without religion there can be no morality" claptrap.
Banging on the same key again, I can cite groups of gnus coming to aid orphaned offspring against lions, in detriment of their own safety; elephants mobilizing to rescue infants out of trouble; mares disciplining young colts; wolves and their quite advanced hierarchy; dogs, horses, parrots (yes, parrots) and even pigs trying to rescue and help their owners; dolphins, ants, bees... the examples are endless. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 07:31:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
Apologies to Dave for getting sidetracked.
De nada.quote:
What are skeptics but a type of philosopher?
Well, they're not necessarily philosophers of science.quote:
I'd certainly think that figuring out how to escape the Cavern of Socrates would be in the interests of people who want to strip away all the bunk.
Okay, a metaphor I'd not yet encountered. But until you explain it, the impression I get is that "escaping the Cavern of Socrates" means, in effect, "to join with the gods," and as far as I know, all gods are bunk.quote:
THAT'S why science can be a religion. For the lay man who has no reason to believe that science really does what it advertises besides the fact that it works most of the time. Of course, ask him if meteorology is good science, the lay man would probably say, "No, the weatherman is always wrong" People are taking science as fact without any reason to do so besides practicality.
And yet, with religion, people take assertions as fact without any reason to do so besides fear and/or greed.
Again, most people don't have the desire, or inclination, or even ability to become scientists themselves. A tax assessor has little need to know why her car works as it does, and is just satisfied that it works. And that's all, she doesn't even think about it - she doesn't pray to GM engineers, she doesn't worry that she might offend the car in some unknown way, she doesn't treat the car with reverence (though she might keep it properly maintained).
The car just is, and doesn't make any sort of impact on any search for "The Truth" this hypothetical tax assessor might be making. She doesn't treat the offerings of modern science with any more solemnity than she does her lunch.
What I'm trying (and perhaps failing) to say is that while plenty of people don't think about or understand the difference between "the truth" and "The Truth," they make that distinction all the time. Science comprises trivial truths. Religion deals with everlasting Truth.
Also, most people know - at some level - that science changes over time. Because of that, it cannot offer "The Truth."quote:
Well, lacking evidence of ET, I'm not really sure you can separate science from humans. You can't do science without humans, if you see what I'm saying.
Yes, yes, but if I kill someone with a hammer, is the hammer to blame? Science is a tool. It is not "at fault" because people abuse it.quote:
And that doesn't bother you as a skeptic? Don't you want to get RID of all the assumptions? Especially the unstated ones?
We cannot. As a pragmatic skeptic, I accept this "problem" and deal with it as best I can.quote:
But if there is no Truth to support being polite, why shouldn't we act like the animals from which we evolved?
Because, aside from the examples of others, already provided, most of us understand that what is is not necessarily what ought to be. We can imagine "better" ways of doing things, and strive to turn those ideas into reality. If not for ourselves, then for our kids, or our kids' kids. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 10:56:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Another question: With the big bang hypothesis as described above, is there a maximum redshift expected with the theory? quote:
The redshift of "things" at the time of the Big Bang itself would be infinite, if we could see them. The redshift of the cosmic microwave background is about 1,089.
OK. I've heard that the cosmic microwave background is much more uniform than expected with big bang theory. And quite recently I've heard that the little variation that does exist can be correlated to features within our own solar system. So with Giltwist, I'm abit surprised that there is such confidence in the big bang premise. I mean, introducing something as incredible as a faster than light inflation to overcome a gravity well and to enable homogeneity in the large scale universe seems like rather adhoc patchwork in the least to me. Big Bang theory *should* be treated far more tentatively than it is, especially by skeptics imo.
quote:
Will we soon be introducing a principle called the "life intiation and organization principle" as another tag to 'explain' the biological life phenomenon which one day we well may find is not explainable with the known laws of physics? quote:
Until such a time - if it ever comes about - abiogenesis research will be going strong, as it is now.
I suppose that the term "going strong" is relative to where it was in the past. When "going strong" means that a living cell has been created in the lab, you'll have my full attention.
quote:
I guess what I'm saying is this: It doesn't hurt that much to come up with new 'laws' which seem to be required as time goes on. And it satisfies the mind with the *appearance* of an explanation. So is it such a transgression if someone decides and believes that the ultimate explanation for all those laws is God himself. I mean, what's one more Tag? :)quote:
That particular "tag" is the end of exploration. "God did it" brooks no further investigation. It terminates science, with extreme prejudice.
Why is invoking "God" anymore distasteful than, say, invoking a primordial "law" which makes the origination of spacetime itself and its energies and associated laws possible in the first place? Presumably this is where science cannot go anyways, so why would science or skepticism find it so objectionable when religionists call this apriori law "God"? If a religionist believes that God has initiated the laws of nature, how exactly does this curtail the end of the investigation of those laws?
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 11:09:19 [Permalink]
|
| You still fail too understand, nothing is moving faster than light, space itself is growing, its not just matter moving through space, thus the appearance of faster than light growth. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 11:11:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So is it such a transgression if someone decides and believes that the ultimate explanation for all those laws is God himself. I mean, what's one more Tag? :)quote:
You fail to consider a simple concept like, oh.... evidence.
Of which there is exactly zero for any god.
I suppose that evidence, like beauty, is truly in the eyes of the beholder then. For people like me, existence itself, life, mind, is evidence for God. Not "proof" mind you, but evidence.
quote:
The way you state your argument makes it sound as if scientists just run around and arbitrarily label things without regard for evidence.
For the record, I have great respect for scientists who investigate thorougly enough to realize that the old paradigm needs to be at least tweaked or revised, and some new laws or principles articulated.
|
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 11:34:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Which shoots down the tired, old "without religion there can be no morality" claptrap.
I'm not saying that morality would disappear without Truth, but why SHOULD we if there is no absolute? Also, I'd like to point out that some mammals freely kill those of their species that are not directly related. Feral cats come to mind. In other words, I was trying to get to a point about how animals treat each other outside of the family unit. Granted, primates are social, but not on a species wide level.
quote:
the impression I get is that "escaping the Cavern of Socrates" means, in effect, "to join with the gods," and as far as I know, all gods are bunk."
See here: http://homepage.mac.com/casewright/essays/plato.html
It's about the world of Shapes vs. the world of Forms, if that helps.
quote:
Yes, yes, but if I kill someone with a hammer, is the hammer to blame? Science is a tool. It is not "at fault" because people abuse it.
Granted, but don't we have gun control legislature because we know guns tend to get abused?
quote:
We cannot. As a pragmatic skeptic, I accept this "problem" and deal with it as best I can.
Now, I'll admit that I am as bad as everyone else when it comes to taking the easy way out so that such thoughts don't consume me, but how do you, as a skeptic, separate the assumptions that are okay to use and the assumptions that aren't?
G.
|
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 11:34:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You still fail too understand, nothing is moving faster than light, space itself is growing, its not just matter moving through space, thus the appearance of faster than light growth.
Still? The only information I have obtained from here is that spacetime itself during 'inflation' was moving faster than lightspeed, somehow. But if you are saying that the faster than light signalling ("inflation") which is apparently required to produce a more homogenious universe is more apparent than real, I'll certainly consider that.
BTW, do you know offhand what the maximum observed redshift from starlight should be, according to big bang theory? If falsifiability is important in skepticism, it would be good to know. One never knows if we may spot galaxies with redshifts greater than they "should" have. I've recently heard that astronomers have been baffled by the mature appearance of a galaxy which, by its large red shift, should have been just a baby, at best.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 11:42:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, a metaphor I'd not yet encountered. But until you explain it, the impression I get is that "escaping the Cavern of Socrates" means, in effect, "to join with the gods," and as far as I know, all gods are bunk.
Dave W, Giltwist is referring to Socrates' philosophy that all of our percieved reality is just shadows of Truth on a wall. quote:
Originally posted by markie
I mean, introducing something as incredible as a faster than light inflation to overcome a gravity well and to enable homogeneity in the large scale universe seems like rather adhoc patchwork in the least to me. Big Bang theory *should* be treated far more tentatively than it is, especially by skeptics imo.
First of all, most science is an "adhoc patchwork" of concepts that fit the facts. Scientists (especially astrophysicists and cosmologists) know exactly what assumptions we have to make in order to keep the big bang theory tenable; however, it is still the best theory we have right now. Until a better one is presented, we will use what we have. quote:
I suppose that the term "going strong" is relative to where it was in the past. When "going strong" means that a living cell has been created in the lab, you'll have my full attention.
As far as I know, you're right: we haven't produced a living organism in the lab. We have, however, produced amino acids and are continuing research.
quote:
Why is invoking "God" anymore distasteful than, say, invoking a primordial "law" which makes the origination of spacetime itself and its energies and associated laws possible in the first place? Presumably this is where science cannot go anyways, so why would science or skepticism find it so objectionable when religionists call this apriori law "God"? If a religionist believes that God has initiated the laws of nature, how exactly does this curtail the end of the investigation of those laws?
First of all, there are many religious scientists now and throughout history who believed their mission is life was to find out the scientific laws with which God created this universe. That's great. If you want to believe in any number of gods and still be a scientist that's fine. The problem arises when a god is invoked in a scientific hypothesis.
The difference is that scientists will say, "I am not sure what happened in that instant, we are still investigating. In the meantime, this theory will explain all the data we have right now." The point where you say, "I know what happened. God magically placed His finger on this singularity and caused it to rapidly expand," you have just lost. Those who accept that explanation will not look into it any further. The scientific process is then curtailed.
You suggest using any number of gods as the explanation for forces. The exact argument I have presented above applies here. A scientist will not claim knowledge of the reason for the electromagnetic force; she will just explain the mechanism, and continue to look for the reason. If you say that a god is the reason for all physical forces, you have effectively closed off that investigation. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 12:16:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
OK. I've heard that the cosmic microwave background is much more uniform than expected with big bang theory. And quite recently I've heard that the little variation that does exist can be correlated to features within our own solar system.
Mighty difficult to argue against "I've heard." I've heard that the CMB is actually much less uniform than it should be if the original, primoridal "universe" were fully uniform. In fact, some scientists are puzzled as to how there exist galaxies at all.quote:
So with Giltwist, I'm abit surprised that there is such confidence in the big bang premise.
How "this is the best we've got" is a demonstration of "confidence," I'm sure I don't know.quote:
I mean, introducing something as incredible as a faster than light inflation to overcome a gravity well and to enable homogeneity in the large scale universe seems like rather adhoc patchwork in the least to me. Big Bang theory *should* be treated far more tentatively than it is, especially by skeptics imo.
What skeptics are treating it as a written-in-stone fact?quote:
I suppose that the term "going strong" is relative to where it was in the past. When "going strong" means that a living cell has been created in the lab, you'll have my full attention.
Unfortunately, you're not going to give your attention, even then. You'll blow it off as a purposeful act by man, and continue to say that such isn't evidence that a bunch of molecules got together by themselves billions of years ago. The two things are apples and oranges, after all.quote:
Why is invoking "God" anymore distasteful than, say, invoking a primordial "law" which makes the origination of spacetime itself and its energies and associated laws possible in the first place? Presumably this is where science cannot go anyways, so why would science or skepticism find it so objectionable when religionists call this apriori law "God"?
Because "God" entails a hell of a lot of assumptions. Which "God?" The only ones I know of all appear to have been invented by people, but people didn't invent the laws of physics.quote:
If a religionist believes that God has initiated the laws of nature, how exactly does this curtail the end of the investigation of those laws?
Well, that doesn't, but had Newton answered the apple question with "Goddidit," we'd probably not be nearly as far along with gravity and other physical research as we are now.quote:
BTW, do you know offhand what the maximum observed redshift from starlight should be, according to big bang theory?
Given that the CMB comes from a time long before there were any stars, "1,089" springs to mind as an absolute maximum, even without looking anything up. Obviously, the real maximum is going to depend on how long it took - theoretically - for the first stars to form after the CMB was released. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 12:25:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not saying that morality would disappear without Truth, but why SHOULD we if there is no absolute? Also, I'd like to point out that some mammals freely kill those of their species that are not directly related. Feral cats come to mind. In other words, I was trying to get to a point about how animals treat each other outside of the family unit. Granted, primates are social, but not on a species wide level.
Moral standards are set by the society, and followed by the individual. In primates such as baboons, each troop is it's own society in microcosm. And like ourselves, they are aggressive toward any other troop that would invade a territory.
Other primates such as gibbons and orangutans are solitary, but they too will defend a territory from others of the species. I am not sure what you mean by 'feral cats.' Is it species such as bobcats, or is it domestic cats gone wild? The latter are considered 'feral' while the former are simply wild species of the family. I will kill any feral cat or dog I see in the field, if I can. They are very destructive to native wildlide.
In any event, with few exceptions, cats are dedicated loners, intense predators, and do not cooperate with each other at all. Not a very good example. But African lion prides, an exception, have their own social codes of conduct.
The social codes of other primates, et al, should be taken at their own value. Their ways are not our ways, but these codes work well for the species.
It is not unreasonable to conjecture, based upon modern primates, that a troop of Australopithines(sp?) had a social structure only a little different from a troop of baboons or chimps. It is a code of conduct that works very well today, although perhaps quite alien to us.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
