|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
 Posted - 07/04/2001 : 19:47:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've read through much of bink's outpourings and it seems pretty much of the 'evangelise at all costs' part of the Xian thing and are indeed probably paraphrased from some pamphlet.
There is a christian writer by the name of Adrian Plass who often says 'Reality will set you free' in response to those who adopt an attitude like Binks.
By that I think he means that you can't go through life in a state of blissful ignorance brought on by overdosing on god, as reality will sneak up on you and bite you on the backside.
Furthermore, I'd say that meaning in life is found by coping with the things that don't go right and by living in a world which isn't all sickly lovely and rose-tinted, which is far from how the likes of Binks would have us believe.
I like your thinking, Yaxxbarl (Yaxx).
I, myself, never have taken kindly to proselytizing by others and try to refrain from doing it myself unless somebody else forces it. Then I lose it. I am more of a *live and let live* kind of person (I believe that whatever exists exists and I leave it at that until somebody forces out my antipathy toward the horrible acts created in the name of somebody else's deity.) I am more positively interested in science and its methods than negatively against anything else. Of course, I will disagree, but with care not to hurt anybody's feelings (until they start throwing religion into the scientific stew).
I, myself, usually stick to being around like-thinking people, because I do not want to get involved in perpetual arguments. You will generally not find me coming out against many people at this site. I may disagree with some of them temporarily, but only slightly or to make conversation.
Thank you for the interesting ideas in your post.
==========
In a similar vein, I liked President Clinton's statement that he *put everything into a little box* to be handled by him when he had time (and he made a gesture with his thumb and forefinger as if he were grasping a little box and shoving it into some imaginary notch in the air). I really liked that. I would think that President Clinton had a lot of *little boxes* all over the place, so he should know. It does work, if you remember to use it. Just take that *imaginary box* and go through the act of putting it decisively away with a gesture into thin air. However, it does not seem to work for me when I am in the middle of a bad situation, but it helps to put the situation out of mind later to pick up when I am ready to deal with it.
Actually, poor Jar_Jar Binks. The need to be right (in the minds of others) is such a silly thing. He really needs a bunch of *little boxes* to get him through the day!
ljbrs
(If I knew better, I'd do better!)
|
 |
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 20:05:20 [Permalink]
|
broven:
Nothing in science is *proven fact*. Anything can be challenged (and often is), but the observations and experiments (and the mathematics) must be there to show the theoretical mistakes. Words will never do by themselves to counter an established theory (or any theory, for that matter).
If anybody ever is able to disprove Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, that will be an extraordinary event. Champagne will flow and Nobels will follow!
I personally think that it is foolish to hate other people because of their religion or lack thereof. I believe that *whatever exists exists* and that it would be blasphemous to think one knew more than God if he/she/it existed. A positive affirmation of science is much preferable to a negative condemnation of religion. However, if somebody comes to this site and uses his/her/its religion to annoy anybody, I will not let it go by without comment.
ljbrs
Now, where is that *little box*?
|
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 02:17:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Secondly, I have to say that I don't quite put evolution in the 'proven fact' department.
Evolution shouldn't be in the "proven fact" department, anyway. Light and gravity aren't "proven fact[s]" in science, either.
Ian Andreas Miller. My site. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 03:21:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Light and gravity aren't "proven fact[s]" in science, either.
So what would you consider to be a "proven fact?" To paraphrase Ijbrs, one could assert that, in science, there are only observations and theories. The more observational evidence in support of any hypothesis, and the more enlightenment provided by mathematical theorems will solidify such an hypothesis until it becomes a proven theory.
Where, then, does "fact" enter the discussion? It is often used to enforce the validity of a theory that has irrefutable evidence in support of it, and has stood the tests of time and peer review. In this case, evolution, light, and gravity, IMHO, are proven facts.
Of course, as with anything in science, these facts are conditional. Gravity, for example, does not want to resolve its conflict with Quantum Mechanics, but that is a discussion for another topic.
-Timmy!
Edited by - Boron10 on 07/11/2001 03:25:10 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 10:26:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Evolution shouldn't be in the "proven fact" department, anyway. Light and gravity aren't "proven fact[s]" in science, either.
Warning! Semantics alert!!
I'd have to disagree. In science, there most certainly are 'proven facts'. But in science, that doesn't mean that they are 100% infallible and irrefutable (unlike religious beliefs).
When a theory reaches a certain level of evidence, (e.g. evolution), it is indeed considered a proven fact. That doesn't mean it can't be disproved, but not accepting it as fact is pretty much just being stubborn and pointless (or philosophical  ).
It is a proven fact that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Is it 100% certain? No. But I'd call you crazy if you claimed it wasn't a 'proven fact'.
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 19:50:26 [Permalink]
|
Slater, you comment that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. Are you being sarcastic? I was under the impression that Newton had pretty clearly demonstrated that the moon was falling tpwards the earth.
I am, you see, new to skeptic friends, so its not always clear to me when folks here are being serious.
My classical historian friend tells me that christianity was initially regarded by the Romans as just another mystery cult making its way out of asia.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 20:29:18 [Permalink]
|
I think that the use of the word *fact* is always temporary (in the sense that all scientific facts would be subject to peer review and all could theoretically be disproved if the right theories and observations came along to do so. Einstein did not disprove Newton in most respects. He developed the theory in a new way which corrected some problems in Newton's theories. Newton's theories are still used for the Solar System, but Einstein's theories are a definite special refinement. I have heard (and read) that the mathematical simplicity of Einstein's theories are too complicated to use in most instances.
I simply realize that all of science is open to, if not capable of, being changed. Much of scientific theory has been changed in the past, and I expect it to happen in the future. If you use the word *fact* to mean something which cannot be altered, then you would not be using it scientifically. Of course, there are a lot of instances where these *facts* are altered slightly to agree with better observations and ideas based upon them -- new *facts*. For instance, the Hipparcos satellite (named after the great ancient astronomer, Hipparchus), with refined computations of parallax, is changing the distances to a number of celestial objects with its improved data. These refinements will always happen. I suppose that there will be a time when refinements stretch the technology, but I always have hopes that new methods will come along.
I just do not believe that anything in science is *set in stone*. Science is a living, vibrant activity. May it always be so.
Of course, I am just kidding. No throwback to Lamarckism is suggested. Nor to Lysenkoism. Just plain and simple ljbrsism!
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 21:03:28 [Permalink]
|
Comradebillyboy:
quote:
Slater, you comment that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. Are you being sarcastic? I was under the impression that Newton had pretty clearly demonstrated that the moon was falling tpwards the earth.
I will attempt to answer that one. The Moon IS SLOWLY MOVING AWAY FROM THE EARTH, although the Moon is still falling toward the Earth. The elipses are getting wider and wider.
quote:
I am, you see, new to skeptic friends, so its not always clear to me when folks here are being serious.
My classical historian friend tells me that christianity was initially regarded by the Romans as just another mystery cult making its way out of asia.
That is the way I understand it. There are a lot of Eastern religions represented. There is no history made by a contemporary of the supposed Jesus. Everything written about him was done much, much later by people who could not possibly have met him.
That is the way most successful religions obtain their new members -- by borrowing from the previous religions of others.
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 22:24:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater, you comment that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. Are you being sarcastic? I was under the impression that Newton had pretty clearly demonstrated that the moon was falling tpwards the earth.
The moon is moving farther out (away) in its orbit around the earth. This means that those wonderful lunar eclipses will (in a few hundred years or so) no longer show us a red moon. There's a page on this website: www.badastronomy.com that covers this. If I recall correctly. If not, make your way to the bb and post the question. You'll get a few replies.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 23:07:50 [Permalink]
|
Sematics.
A Fact in science is a repeatable observation. No more, no less. Observing an steel bearing roll down an incline is a fact. Facts aren't true or false; they just are (unless you are a HB and like to manufacture your "facts").
A Hypothesis is a tentative explaination of the cause(s) of the observation.
A Theory a hypothesis which has survived rigorous testing and peer review.
Note that both hypothesis and theory are predictive in nature.
In science, you cannot show a theory to be absolutely true, but you can show it be false.
Thus, we say that gravity is both a fact and a theory. The fact is that we can get a ball to roll down an incline. Theory, because we think the Earth sucks.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2001 : 20:19:42 [Permalink]
|
Jar-Jar old buddy, try the Landover Baptist Church web site. I think that is a better fit for you than SFN.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2001 : 20:42:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sematics.
A Fact in science is a repeatable observation. No more, no less. Observing an steel bearing roll down an incline is a fact. Facts aren't true or false; they just are (unless you are a HB and like to manufacture your "facts").
A Hypothesis is a tentative explaination of the cause(s) of the observation.
A Theory a hypothesis which has survived rigorous testing and peer review.
Note that both hypothesis and theory are predictive in nature.
In science, you cannot show a theory to be absolutely true, but you can show it be false.
Thus, we say that gravity is both a fact and a theory. The fact is that we can get a ball to roll down an incline. Theory, because we think the Earth sucks.
Bozola
Bozola:
Semantics? Very true. Definitions, while very similar, depend upon where (and when) one learned the rules of physics (in this case).
However, I will extremely mildly take issue with you on your last statement:
quote:
Theory, because we think the Earth sucks.
The Earth does not *suck* by itself. The result depends upon the interacting masses involved. Gravity works both (all) ways. In the quoted case, the mass of the Earth is gravitationally pulling on the Moon, while, at the same time, the mass of the Moon is gravitationally pulling on the Earth. Of course, all of the members of the Solar System (including the asteroids, comets, dust, etc., are pulling on each other. The Sun pulls gravitationally on the Earth (and upon on all the other bodies in the Solar System) and all the other bodies in the Solar System pull gravitationally upon the Sun and upon each other. The center of such gravitational waltz would lie within the Sun itself because it has far greater mass than the other bodies combined. Now, because of the difficulty of calculating more than a two-body system, many-body systems (three or more bodies) are impossible to calculate accurately. I do not think that has changed in recent times.
Semantics. Words are defined by the user in science so as not to confuse. The mathematics involved in the calculations makes it all much more exact. Then one need not quibble over words.
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2001 : 21:23:51 [Permalink]
|
I have in front of me a number of *Facts on File* dictionaries: The *Facts on File Dictionary Of* 1) *Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering*, 2) *Earth Science*, 3) *Computer Science*, 4) *Chemistry*, 5) *Mathematics*, 6) *Biology*, 7) *Astronomy*, 8) *Physics*. Interestingly, nowhere, in any of them, is the word, *fact*, defined. Evidently a *fact* includes any and all items and definitions listed in any and all of the dictionaries. The word *fact* obviously has meaning, but the authors are silent on that issue. Evidently, they rely on regular dictionaries (with the myriad of definitions) for the meaning(s) of *fact*!
On the other hand, there are some terms which scientists use which are actually misnomers, even though meaningful in some way. One such misused phrase is *centrifugal force* which uses the word *force* even though it is not a real *force* itself. If *centrifugal force* is defined at all, it is defined as a *fictitious force* (with the explanation that it is not a real force) in all of the dictionaries of science which I have. However, sometimes *centrifugal force* is not even listed (with or without the disclaimer). What is mistakenly called *centrifugal force* is really *inertia*, which is the *absence of a force*. So you see, sometimes words are improperly used, even by scientists. I often hear the fallacious term used by scientists, because it is handy, if not meaningful. However, the people using it know full well what they are describing.
So, it is a *fact* (whatever that means) that *centrifugal force* is *not a force*!
Next time you use it, think about it. It is fun to live dangerously...
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2001 : 20:09:20 [Permalink]
|
Slater, you comment that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. Are you being sarcastic?
Nope.
The moon is literally inching away from the Earth. Just a bit less than three inches a year. Which is nothing unless you start dealing with geologic scales of time.
If you went out tonight and held up your hand at arms length you could block out the moon with your thumb. However if you took your sweetie out for a canoe paddle on some early Jurassic lagoon you would need your entire hand held at arms length to cover it. Go back even further to the time that life emerged from the seas and you would find a moon so close that the tides would have been vast and monumental. They would have covered and uncovered so much acreage that life would have had little choice but to get out of the water. (Besides it's fingers were getting all pruney)
I was under the impression that Newton had pretty clearly demonstrated that the moon was falling towards the earth.
He may have, I'm not sure. But one thing you have to keep in mind about Newton and gravity was that he was wrong. Oh his numbers were pretty good. Good enough for government work, as the guys over at NASA will attest, but not perfect. It took a regular Einstein to figure out how gravity actually worked. In fact it took THE Einstein with his polydactyl dimensions to find the answer.
Newton, one must keep in mind, was a devout Christian. What he was trying to do was come up with the math behind something called "Holy Spirit Force". What he found, much to his distress, was that there isn't any HSF. He named what he found the Force of Gravity (Dr Prawn—any ideas why he would choose the word "gravity"?) Like "centripetal force" actually being inertia the "force" of gravity is actually a warping of "the fabric of space" by the mass of an object and not really a force (until you get to Quantum levels and then all bets are off and the drinks are on me). The force idea is just a hold over from his religious prejudices.
Orbit depends on a balance of mass and speed. Take the space shuttle, when they want to come home they need what used to be called "retro" rockets.('cause they were popular in the 50's) In other words they put on the brakes. Slowing down they go into a lower orbit which bisects the surface of the Earth. (A fancy way to say-- fall)
The moon is going just an eensy weensy tiny bit too fast. Eventually it will break free of Earth and orbit the Sun in an orbit much too close to the one we use for proprieties sake.
But not today, so don't let that spoil your weekend.
I am, you see, new to skeptic friends, so its not always clear to me when folks here are being serious.
If we are typing we are not being completely serious (but of course, I'm typing now).
My classical historian friend tells me that christianity was initially regarded by the Romans as just another mystery cult making its way out of asia.
The problem is there were two religions both called Christianity. Neither were "Mystery Cults". A mystery cult would be something more along the lines of Dionysian worship and not Krishna and definitely not Jesus.
The Jesus worship shows all the signs of having been fabricated. (To the point where the writers even cribbed dialogue from popular plays.)
Has this friend of yours any info on Apollonius of Tyana that (s)he could share with us?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2001 : 20:17:33 [Permalink]
|
Slater
Thanks for the info and explanation of the moon's orbit.
[quote]
Has this friend of yours any info on Apollonius of Tyana that (s)he could share with us?
I will see him this evening and will ask. I'll let you know what I find out.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
