Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who is the real fundamentalist?

shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 1:38:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
"So long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component [of
quantum mechanics] and so long as we do not know when and how it takes
over from the Schrodinger equation, we do not have an exact and
unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory." -
physicist, John Bell

If this is so, why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?

"The wave function of the universe cannot be seen, measured, assessed,
or tested. It is purely a theoretical artifact. Physicists have found
it remarkably easy to pass from speculation about the wave function of
the universe to the conviction that there is a wave function of the
universe. This is nothing more than an endearing human weakness. Less
endearing by far is their sullen contempt toward religious argument
when it is engaged in precisely the same attempt to reach by
speculation what cannot be grasped in any other way". -David
Berlinski
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 4:16:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 1:38:56 AM, shnarkle wrote:
why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?
'Fundamental' in science doesn't mean the same as 'fundamentalist', Schnarkle.

In physics, a fundamental theory isn't claimed to be absolutely true -- it remains a theory, and can be refuted or extended by new observation. What makes it fundamental is that it is the most parsimonious theory that can accurately and specifically predict everything presently observed. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]

So for a long time, an atom was the fundamental particle of matter. Every observed behaviour of matter could be explained by the electromechanics of atoms.

Nevertheless, the discovery of radiation, and some odd behaviours of light changed the theory, and atoms are no longer fundamental particles in physics, though they remain so in chemistry.

Regarding your second, critique-quote, David Berlinski is an odd and not entirely honest fellow. Philosophy trained, although he claims to have worked enough in a molecular biology lab to understand how science works, nevertheless he either does not understand or won't admit what's going on in physics. So either he's dishonest about how much he knows, or dishonest about what it actually means. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

And he's associated with the pseudoscientific propaganda organisation The Discovery Institute, Schnarkle, which is academically dishonest and has been denounced by science bodies worldwide (Please poke me for links if you haven't seen them.) That is why, essentially, you should never quote his views as having any bearing or authority about science.
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:19:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 4:16:26 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/24/2016 1:38:56 AM, shnarkle wrote:
why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?
'Fundamental' in science doesn't mean the same as 'fundamentalist', Schnarkle.

shnarkle: Quite true, to a certain extent. However, if a fundamental theory isn't fundamental in the first place then in one very particular regard it is exactly like a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist will claim that the serpent in the Genesis account is actually a serpent talking to Eve when the reality is that the word often translated as "serpent" from the Hebrew "Nachash" means "shining one, burning one" and only by extension does it include a serpent because of the burning of its bite. A fundamentalist ignores the fact that their own source material plainly states "that ol' serpent, the devil and Satan" They think that it's a story about how and why snakes no longer have legs when it's really about this shining one who wants recognition and power and is then told that he will be put into a position of utter subjugation (we still use this figurative speech today with comments like, "eat my dust"). When their book tells them that Judah is a lion they don't think that he's literally a lion so there exists an inconsistency to their logic that is undeniable. In the same way a fundamental theory isn't fundamental if it effectively has no meaning or relevance. How do you come to any meaningful conclusions without " an exact and
unambiguous formulation"?
---------------------------------------------------

In physics, a fundamental theory isn't claimed to be absolutely true

shnarkle: I never suggested they had to be absolute or even true; just fundamental.
---------------------------------------------------
-- it remains a theory, and can be refuted or extended by new observation.

shnarkle: Not when one relies on an inexact and ambiguous formulation.
=============================
What makes it fundamental is that it is the most parsimonious theory that can accurately and specifically predict everything presently observed. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]

shnarkle: And this is precisely the problem, isn't it??? Euclidian geometry was the most parsimonious way to explain things for a while as well, but at some point one needs to abandon theories that don't really explain anything; and inexact ambiguous formulations are like figurative speech to a fundamentalist. All they can do is look at it according to their fundamental understanding which ignores reality altogether.
-----------------------------------------

So for a long time, an atom was the fundamental particle of matter. Every observed behaviour of matter could be explained by the electromechanics of atoms.

Nevertheless, the discovery of radiation, and some odd behaviours of light changed the theory, and atoms are no longer fundamental particles in physics, though they remain so in chemistry.

shnarkle: So you agree that these things aren't really fundamental right? If that's the case then why are they still looked at as fundamental? If not, then what is your argument?
----------------------------------

Regarding your second, critique-quote, David Berlinski is an odd and not entirely honest fellow.

shnarkle: Fallacy of Ad Hominem Stick to the content of what he said, rather than his personal life.
----------------------------
Philosophy trained, although he claims to have worked enough in a molecular biology lab to understand how science works, nevertheless he either does not understand or won't admit what's going on in physics.

shnarkle: And you don't either because you haven't refuted what he said. You haven't even addressed the point of this post.
-----------------------------------
So either he's dishonest about how much he knows, or dishonest about what it actually means. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

And he's associated with the pseudoscientific propaganda organisation The Discovery Institute, Schnarkle, which is academically dishonest and has been denounced by science bodies worldwide (Please poke me for links if you haven't seen them.) That is why, essentially, you should never quote his views as having any bearing or authority about science.

shnarkle: When Berlinski questions scientists, quite often it is common for the scientists to waffle, deflect, or just plainly refuse to answer his questions based on their self-proclaimed superior understanding of the topic. In other words, they're are the priestly class, and therefore their claims are beyond questioning. They are the authorities and don't have to answer these silly questions from the peanut gallery. Berlinski is simply pointing out the hypocrisy in the scientific community. When I see scientists calling for the execution of those who have taken the heretical position of questioning global warming, or insisting that the "theory" of evolution is an unquestionable fact, then the sciences have become the newest religion on the block. They have descended into a dangerous ideology that will result in new Crusades to inculcate their nonsense into the zombie class.

I still can't figure out how after joining a debate group people don't understand that Ad Hominem attacks don't prove anything.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 8:11:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:19:27 PM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/24/2016 4:16:26 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/24/2016 1:38:56 AM, shnarkle wrote:
why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?
'Fundamental' in science doesn't mean the same as 'fundamentalist', Schnarkle.
Quite true, to a certain extent. However, if a fundamental theory isn't fundamental in the first place then in one very particular regard it is exactly like a fundamentalist.
I didn't follow your argument, which to me seemed strained and irrelevant to topic. The term 'fundamentalist' was coined in the 1920s to describe Protestants who believed scriptural inerrance -- essentially an appeal to 'fundamental truths'.

Fundamentalism is a protest against that rationalistic interpretation of Christianity which seeks to discredit supernaturalism. This rationalism, when full grown, scorns the miracles of the Old Testament, sets aside the virgin birth of our Lord as a thing unbelievable, laughs at the credulity of those who accept many of the New Testament miracles, reduces the resurrection of our Lord to the fact that death did not end his existence, and sweeps away the promises of his second coming as an idle dream. It matters not by what name these modernists are known. The simple fact is that, in robbing Christianity of its supernatural content, they are undermining the very foundations of our holy religion. They boast that they are strengthening the foundations and making Christianity more rational and more acceptable to thoughtful people. Christianity is rooted and grounded in supernaturalism, and when robbed of supernaturalism it ceases to be a religion and becomes an exalted system of ethics. [Curtis Lee Laws, "Herald & Presbyter," July 19, 1922]

That has no relationship to the methods of science, which treats every scientific model as replaceable with better evidence.

it remains a theory, and can be refuted or extended by new observation.
Not when one relies on an inexact and ambiguous formulation.
Precision and unambiguity are essential to scientific analysis, as they are not to theology. Is there a particular science criticised by scientists as vague and ambiguous? If so, please supply the criticism, and explain how that is relevant to topic.

What makes it fundamental is that it is the most parsimonious theory that can accurately and specifically predict everything presently observed.
And this is precisely the problem, isn't it??? Euclidian geometry was the most parsimonious way to explain things for a while as well, but at some point one needs to abandon theories that don't really explain anything
What on earth are you talking about?

So for a long time, an atom was the fundamental particle of matter. Every observed behaviour of matter could be explained by the electromechanics of atoms. Nevertheless, the discovery of radiation, and some odd behaviours of light changed the theory, and atoms are no longer fundamental particles in physics, though they remain so in chemistry.
So you agree that these things aren't really fundamental right?
I agree that science no longer describes atoms as fundamental units of matter. It hasn't done so since the late 19th century.

If that's the case then why are they still looked at as fundamental? If not, then what is your argument?
What on earth are you talking about?

Regarding your second, critique-quote, David Berlinski is an odd and not entirely honest fellow.
Fallacy of Ad Hominem Stick to the content of what he said, rather than his personal life.
It's not his personal life, but his professionalism, and it's relevant to using him as an authority on science.

The profession of scientist requires five key criteria: competence in relevant methods models and literature, honesty, diligence, transparency, and the application of best practice methodologies in the field. (There are other criteria, but if you fail any one of these, the scientific community will denounce you and won't acknowledge you.)

Berlinski fails in about 80% of these criteria. He's not research science-educated and doesn't acknowledge it, he's not diligent in his research of scientific thought and methods, and isn't transparent in how he comes by his opinions. He's not qualified to comment on science, doesn't submit science papers to peer review, is not respected by the scientific community, and consequently should not be quoted as an authority in any discussion pertaining to the operation or ethics of science.

Shnarkle, you're welcome to reply and it's your right to do so, but I was concerned to see that your last post seemed entirely off-topic and irrelevant to a thread you yourself initiated.

You seem to have pitched the idea that a scientist talking about a fundamental theory is a kind of science fundamentalist, and I don't see how you can do that without arguing that a scientist believes a particular scientific theory inerrant.

You could substantiate that directly by either producing a scientific theory and showing that scientists have claimed it inerrant, or indirectly by quoting a respected scientist who has leveled that criticism at his peers.

You need to do one of these to progress this argument. If you don't, you'll simply be talking twaddle, and members may see such behaviour as ignorant, time-wasting and disrespectful.
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 10:15:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 8:11:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:19:27 PM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/24/2016 4:16:26 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/24/2016 1:38:56 AM, shnarkle wrote:
why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?
'Fundamental' in science doesn't mean the same as 'fundamentalist'

, Schnarkle. Quite true, to a certain extent. However, if a fundamental theory isn't fundamental in the first place then in one very particular regard it is exactly like a fundamentalist.
I didn't follow your argument, which to me seemed strained and irrelevant to topic. The term 'fundamentalist' was coined in the 1920s to describe Protestants who believed scriptural inerrance -- essentially an appeal to 'fundamental truths'.

Fundamentalism is a protest against that rationalistic interpretation of Christianity which seeks to discredit supernaturalism. This rationalism, when full grown, scorns the miracles of the Old Testament, sets aside the virgin birth of our Lord as a thing unbelievable, laughs at the credulity of those who accept many of the New Testament miracles, reduces the resurrection of our Lord to the fact that death did not end his existence, and sweeps away the promises of his second coming as an idle dream. It matters not by what name these modernists are known. The simple fact is that, in robbing Christianity of its supernatural content, they are undermining the very foundations of our holy religion. They boast that they are strengthening the foundations and making Christianity more rational and more acceptable to thoughtful people. Christianity is rooted and grounded in supernaturalism, and when robbed of supernaturalism it ceases to be a religion and becomes an exalted system of ethics. [Curtis Lee Laws, "Herald & Presbyter," July 19, 1922]

That has no relationship to the methods of science, which treats every scientific model as replaceable with better evidence.

shnarkle: I wasn't referring to some obscure definition from some guy with an ax to grind against some obscure group of people who don't even believe in the bible. I'm using the definition that everyone else uses. In a nutshell:

".fundamentalism definition. A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christians. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true"

Here's yet another more detailed, but still concise and clear definition:
"1.
(sometimes initial capital letter) a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts, especially within American Protestantism and Islam.
2.
the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles:
the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives."


it remains a theory, and can be refuted or extended by new observation.
Not when one relies on an inexact and ambiguous formulation.
Precision and unambiguity are essential to scientific analysis,

shnarkle: Good point! Your making my point for me. So why is there this blatant contradiction?
-------------------------------
as they are not to theology.

shnarkle: The argument isn't between the accuracy of the two fields of study, but the fact that when the field of theology engages in this type of behavior, the scientists are full of contempt,but when the scientists themselves do the exact same thing, they don't seem to have a problem with it. Why? Your point(not that I necessarily agree with it) also spotlights that there is no reason for the scientists to feel contempt. So what's your point there?
----------------------------------
Is there a particular science criticised

shnarkle: If you check the quote it says:

""So long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component [of
quantum mechanics] and so long as we do not know when and how it takes
over from the Schrodinger equation, we do not have an exact and
unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory." -
physicist, John Bell"

shnarkle: : What does that tell you? This isn't marine biology is it? More importantly, the specific problem that this physicist is pointing out is that this most fundamental physical theory isn't really fundamental at all.
------------------------------------
and explain how that is relevant to topic.

shnarkle: It's relevant to this topic because it is the topic. It's the first quote I provided which documents that this is what the topic is in reference to .

What makes it fundamental is that it is the most parsimonious theory that can accurately and specifically predict everything presently observed.
And this is precisely the problem, isn't it??? Euclidian geometry was the most parsimonious way to explain things for a while as well, but at some point one needs to abandon theories that don't really explain anything
What on earth are you talking about?

shnarkle I'm talking about the fact that when the most parsimonious theory becomes inaccurate and doesn't fit with scientific observation, it needs to be abandoned. This theory is considered fundamental, but admittedly doesn't really explain much anymore according to Bell. Ambiguous and inexact theories tend to do that.
-----------------------------------


Regarding your second, critique-quote, David Berlinski is an odd and not entirely honest fellow.
Fallacy of Ad Hominem Stick to the content of what he said, rather than his personal life.
It's not his personal life, but his professionalism,

shnarkle: So what? It's still an attack on his person; it's not addressing what he says. Prove he has an agenda by refuting the argument, and you kill two birds with one stone. In this case both birds got away. .
--------------------------------------
and it's relevant to using him as an authority on science.

shnarkle: He isn't being quoted as an authority on science. John Bell is the authority.
Berlinski isn't making any comments about Bell's agenda or lack of an agenda or the person, but is addressing the content of his statement. So how bout' extending the courtesy? Address the message, not the messenger.
-------:
Berlinski fails <snip>

Shnarkle: See above.
--------------------
You seem to have pitched the idea that a scientist talking about a fundamental theory is a kind of science fundamentalist, and I don't see how you can do that without arguing that a scientist believes a particular scientific theory inerrant.

shnarkle: When "the most fundamental theory" is inexact and ambiguous it isn't a fundamental theory. They need to grow out of this idea that it is fundamental in the same way that the fundamentalist needs to grow out of looking at the bible as entirely literal. It isn't primarily about being inerrant, but an effective method, When the method becomes ineffective, it doesn't explain or agree with the observations. This is true for the fundamentalist and the scientist who uses inexact and ambiguous theories.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 11:08:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 10:15:08 PM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/24/2016 8:11:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:19:27 PM, shnarkle wrote:
The term 'fundamentalist' was coined in the 1920s to describe Protestants who believed scriptural inerrance -- essentially an appeal to 'fundamental truths'.

Fundamentalism is a protest against that rationalistic interpretation of Christianity which seeks to discredit supernaturalism. This rationalism, when full grown, scorns the miracles of the Old Testament, sets aside the virgin birth of our Lord as a thing unbelievable, laughs at the credulity of those who accept many of the New Testament miracles, reduces the resurrection of our Lord to the fact that death did not end his existence, and sweeps away the promises of his second coming as an idle dream. It matters not by what name these modernists are known. The simple fact is that, in robbing Christianity of its supernatural content, they are undermining the very foundations of our holy religion. They boast that they are strengthening the foundations and making Christianity more rational and more acceptable to thoughtful people. Christianity is rooted and grounded in supernaturalism, and when robbed of supernaturalism it ceases to be a religion and becomes an exalted system of ethics. [Curtis Lee Laws, "Herald & Presbyter," July 19, 1922]

That has no relationship to the methods of science, which treats every scientific model as replaceable with better evidence.

I wasn't referring to some obscure definition from some guy with an ax to grind against some obscure group of people who don't even believe in the bible.
For clarity, the 'obscure guy' -- Curtis Lee Laws, whom I quoted -- was a Baptist pastor and editor of The Watchman-Examiner. It was his definition which underpins a modern notion of Protestant fundamentalism, though the term has now been extended to include other faiths, such as Islam.

The argument isn't between the accuracy of the two fields of study, but the fact that when the field of theology engages in this type of behavior, the scientists are full of contempt,but when the scientists themselves do the exact same thing

Well, you're lacking some evidence -- okay, you're lacking all the evidence, and some critical information too. Firstly, you haven't quoted a single source representative of 'the scientists' showing contempt for Biblical literalism rather than (say) methodological or factual disagreement. Secondly, you haven't shown that any scientist believes any scientific model inerrant.

And you won't be able to produce that evidence. Let me tell you why.

1) Scientists do not believe scientific models inerrant. Their whole epistemological frame is that knowledge is built from observation, not tradition, theory or revelation.

2) One of the properties of scientific inquiry is that once an idea is falsified, it's falsified forever. So new models can replace old models, but old discarded models will never return to use. This explains why, when scientists discard a model based on contrary evidence, they dismiss it thereafter.

As you know, science has dismissed numerous claims from Genesis. It is only scientific ignorance that makes Christian fundamentalists think they can make science change its mind So what you are construing as contempt is in many cases epistemological dismissal of false ideas based on flawed methodology.

I'm happy to explain why falsifying existing theories doesn't reinstitute old, discarded theories. Feel free to ask. Until you understand this, you won't understand why your reasoning is flawed. Based on your behaviour, I don't believe you'll care to learn, but if you ask, I will assist you.

On the presumption that you won't ask, this concludes my substantive responses to your ideas, Shnarkle. I realise your account has been on the site for a while, but since I haven't seen you here before, welcome to the forum.
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 12:19:24 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 11:08:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
-- was a Baptist pastor and editor of The Watchman-Examiner. It was his definition which underpins a modern notion of Protestant fundamentalism, though the term has now been extended to include other faiths, such as Islam.

shnarkle: irrelevant. I'm not talking about some minor underpinning. I"m talking about the main thrust of the definition of fundamentalism. I could do the same thing and go back to the some of the fathers of science and show that they're not what you would consider an accurate assessment. Aristotle (biology) referred to women "deformed males". Galileo, considered by many to be the father of modern science; taught that the earth revolved around the sun before he had even proved the fact. Well, actually, this is a case of "The more things change the more they stay the same." Guess modern scientists are taking their queues from Galileo after all.
-----------------------------
".fundamentalism definition. A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christians. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true"

The argument isn't between the accuracy of the two fields of study, but the fact that when the field of theology engages in this type of behavior, the scientists are full of contempt,but when the scientists themselves do the exact same thing

Well, you're lacking some evidence --

shnarkle: Let me then ask you a simple question. Is there a wave function of the universe?
--------------------------------
you haven't quoted a single source representative of 'the scientists' showing contempt for Biblical literalism

shnarkle: Straw man argument. Please try to pay attention to what I"m actually posting. It isn't that scientists have contempt for a literal biblical interpretation, it is contempt for certain religious claims, e.g. the existence of God. without proving anything, and using nothing other than speculation.
--------------------------
who engage in speculation rather than (say).....

shnarkle: ...scientific observation. In the example I just gave, scientists respond to the religious claim that all of creation points to a Creator by simply asking the religious to produce this Creator. Show us the Creator instead of showing us everything that this claimed Creator supposedly created. In the same way the theory of Evolution claims that with all the vast amount of information we have, e.g. stochastic shuffle, adaptation, "selfish genes"the fossil record etc. we can see that it is just plain obvious that this is due to "The Mechanism". Yeah, sure. Produce the Mechanism. Maybe I'm not up to date here, are there any pictures of "the mechanism" out yet?
-------------------
you haven't shown that any scientist believes any scientific model inerrant.

shnarkle: Not the point of my post. The point is that they are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.


.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 3:06:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 12:19:24 AM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/24/2016 11:08:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm happy to explain why falsifying existing theories doesn't reinstitute old, discarded theories. Feel free to ask. Until you understand this, you won't understand why your reasoning is flawed. Based on your behaviour, I don't believe you'll care to learn, but if you ask, I will assist you.

On the presumption that you won't ask, this concludes my substantive responses to your ideas, Shnarkle. I realise your account has been on the site for a while, but since I haven't seen you here before, welcome to the forum.
<Nothing pertinent>

As expected, you didn't ask the one question you need to ask, which is how a theory which acknowledges its own risk of ignorance and error can nevertheless claim another belief wrong. My comments above apply. I'm unable to help a member satisfied with his own ignorance.

You need to pursue this argument with other members, Shnarkle. I have no further substantive contribution for you.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 4:25:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 12:19:24 AM, shnarkle wrote:

shnarkle: Aristotle (biology) referred to women "deformed males".

Obviously misdiagnosed. Or, are you treating this as if it was personal and not a medical opinion?

Galileo, considered by many to be the father of modern science; taught that the earth revolved around the sun before he had even proved the fact. Well, actually, this is a case of "The more things change the more they stay the same." Guess modern scientists are taking their queues from Galileo after all.

Do you mean the fact that Galileo was dead right is why modern scientists should take their queues from him? They do. And, he didn't have to prove it as a fact, he simply provided the evidence and it became one.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 5:38:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 3:06:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 12:19:24 AM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/24/2016 11:08:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm happy to explain why falsifying existing theories doesn't reinstitute old, discarded theories.

shnarkle: Straw man argument. Look at what I actually posted please.
------------------------
Feel free to ask.

shnarkle: Feel free to refute this post instead of trying to knock down all those straw men.
------------------------------
Until you understand this, you won't understand why your reasoning is flawed.

shanrkle: Presenting logically consistent and relevant arguments would go much further to helping me understand. It would also be much more appropriate given that this is a debate forum.
--------------------------
Based on your behaviour, I don't believe you'll care to learn, but if you ask, I will assist you.

shnarkle: I asked you to respond to the arguments I actually presented I'm not asking, especially when it's probably just going to be more of your preaching.
-------------------------

On the presumption that you won't ask,

shnarkle: Now you decide to make an accurate presumption. I wonder what gave you that idea.
-------------------------
this concludes my substantive responses to your ideas,

shnarkle: Actually, it initiates(and one can only hope it concludes) your non substantive responses.
----------------------
welcome to the forum.
<Nothing pertinent>

shnarkle: Thanks.
----------------------------

As expected, you didn't ask the one question you need to ask, which is how a theory which acknowledges its own risk of ignorance and error can nevertheless claim another belief wrong.

shnarkle: Completely restructuring the subject into an altogether different argument doesn't address what this topic is about. It's called a straw man argument. Again, I"m pretty bored so I'll let you in on a few of the tell tale signs that you've completely misunderstood the topic. For starters, scientific theories don't deal with beliefs. ( Just so you don't go off on some rant, when I say "belief", I'm not talking in terms of a hypothesis, but belief in the traditional formulation of what someone believes regardless of evidence, observation,etc,i.e."articles of faith".) The primary aim of this topic doesn't either, except insofar as one may be able to equate speculation with belief.

Regardless of the terminology used the scientific community scoffs at the religious for their "belief" or "speculation" when it crosses beyond its boundaries and becomes a fact. I gave the first example in the first post as well as another one concerning Evolution. You effectively ignored both of them.

So you see it isn't a theory, it's scientists themselves who are admitting that they aren't dealing with an exact science. They aren't claiming the religious belief wrong. They are pointing out that the beliefs/speculations of the religious aren't facts, e.g. beliefs don't prove the existence of God.

My point is that scientists are quite right to point out that the religious are unable to falsify their assertions for the existence of God, but when it comes to their own speculations, they don't seem to have a problem making that leap from speculation to fact. This is what the first quotation from John Bell spotlighted which you were evidently unable to grasp. (For everyone else who also doesn't quite follow what's going on here, this post is using a play on the word "fundamental") Hence my question which you chose to ignore completely in favor of talking smack about Berlinski. In the world of debate you failed to:
A. address my topic;
B. refute my arguments;
C. in favor of Ad Hominem aka "The fallacy of Ad Hominem"

----------------------------
I gave two examples of My comments above apply. I'm unable to help a member satisfied with his own ignorance.

shnarle: You're the one doing the ignoring, not me. Actually I've noticed this in other topics as well. It's not really so much ignoring what I'm posting as it is high jacking the topic in an attempt to argue something completely different. One of my other threads it happened so fast that I wasn't able to get it back at all. I'll give you credit for one thing at least you responded back to me, even if you didn't respond to anything that I was posting.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 5:49:10 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 5:38:56 AM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/25/2016 3:06:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 12:19:24 AM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/24/2016 11:08:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm happy to explain why falsifying existing theories doesn't reinstitute old, discarded theories.
Look at what I actually posted please.

Although your communication tends to wander, I believe I have come to understand what you've been arguing. I have also said you need key information before you understand what scientists are doing and why. It is your misunderstanding rather than insight, that has produced the argument you have made.

To acquire that information, you must first acknowledge that you do not understand science well (you very much don't), and secondly you must desire to understand it better (I think you are happy with your present misunderstanding. I suspect it appeals to the vanity of your beliefs about your own faith.)

That is why I believe I'm unable to help you, and why you have made it unconstructive to engage this argument further.

Some members will doubtless continue to engage these thoughts, Shnarkle. But unless you desire to understand better how science and religion differ in their notions of knowledge and methods for validating and verifying it, I regret that I shall not be among them.
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 7:51:10 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 4:25:07 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/25/2016 12:19:24 AM, shnarkle wrote:

shnarkle: Aristotle (biology) referred to women "deformed males".

Obviously misdiagnosed. Or, are you treating this as if it was personal and not a medical opinion?

shnarkle: Please try not to wander off the topic. The point is that when you think of the father of biology do you automatically think that a cornerstone of biology is that women are "deformed males"??? If you do, then you don't know much about female anatomy, and you are going to have some problems getting through even a high school biology class. If you don't, then you should see and admit my point that when speaking of fundamentalism the vast majority of people don't go to the founder of the term, but to defining mark of the commonly used and understood definition, i.e. biblical statements are literally (as opposed to figuratively) true.
----------------------------------

Galileo, considered by many to be the father of modern science; taught that the earth revolved around the sun before he had even proved the fact. Well, actually, this is a case of "The more things change the more they stay the same." Guess modern scientists are taking their queues from Galileo after all.

Do you mean the fact that Galileo was dead right is why modern scientists should take their queues from him?

shnarkle: No, the fact that Galileo was dead right is why modern scientists SHOULDN'T take their queues from him. No, the fact that his hunch was right isn't enough. He needed to PROVE his hunch. The whole reason Galileo came under such scrutiny from the Church was because he was teaching this as a fact PRIOR to PROVING IT! How can you ask me "Do you mean...etc" when I stated "before he had even proved the fact. "?
----------------------------------
They do.

shnarkle: Yes, they do the exact same thing. They speculate and then through some unknown manipulation that they can plainly see in their religious opponents, but not in themselves; they turn this into a fact WITHOUT PROOF.
------------------------
And, he didn't have to prove it as a fact

sharkle: And again, this shows that modern day scientists actually do take this queue from Galileo as well. To be crystal clear, in science one actually does have to supply proof/evidence/testing etc. Hunches aren't enough UNTIL PROVEN correct.

The question then becomes, why do the religious have to maintain a standard which you seem to think scientists don't??? If as you say, ", he didn't have to prove it as a fact" then why do the religious have to be able to falsify the existence of God?
----------------------------
, he simply provided the evidence and it became one.

shnarkle: Yes! That's how he proved it was a fact!!!!!! However, he even signed a document agreeing to cease from teaching that the earth rotated around the sun until he could prove it. Then proceeded to do just the opposite, and continued to teach that the earth rotated around the sun WITHOUT ENOUGH PROOF.

This is what got him into so much trouble, i.e. he went back on his word. Modern scientists are taking their queues here as well. They make their conclusions,not based on the evidence; but who's funding what they're studying. This has been notoriously spotlighted repeatedly in the news for years. Scientists are retracting their assent to conclusions in peer reviewed journals because of this nonsense.

Again, you seem to be a bit ignorant of the historical facts here. I don't have a problem with Galileo proving that the earth rotates around the sun. I have a problem with him teaching it as a fact PRIOR TO PROVING WITH EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS A FACT. This is the EXACT same topic of this thread!!!

In case you've forgotten again, the examples I gave are scientists who speculate the possibility of a wave function then WITHOUT PROOF claim with conviction that there actually is one. Why do we say this? Because John Bell pointed out that the wave packet reduction is effectively floating out in nobody knows what with no reference whatsoever to anything(but especially in relation to the Shrodinger equation which ironically enough deals with, among other things; PROBABILITY) to give scientists any context for their theories, experiments etc. He reminds us that this is an integral part "of our most fundamental physical theory". To the layman, this means that this speculation is fundamental, and this doesn't hold water when applied to proving the existence of God, or the gods etc. and rightly so! So why is it now acceptable to make speculation not just acceptable, but fundamental when it comes to quantum mechanics or Evolution???

Oh, and by the way, we don't have to provide an in depth understanding of the material in order to understand the basic argument. If you disagree,, then I can provide you with a link to the text of the bible and we can continue this discussion after you've read it along with the fundamental interpretation. Who knows, maybe that's what it would take for you to see the wordplay in the "Real Fundamentalist"
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 2:22:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 7:51:10 AM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/25/2016 4:25:07 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/25/2016 12:19:24 AM, shnarkle wrote:

shnarkle: Aristotle (biology) referred to women "deformed males".

Obviously misdiagnosed. Or, are you treating this as if it was personal and not a medical opinion?

shnarkle: Please try not to wander off the topic.

I am responding to YOUR words in YOUR thread. How can that not be on topic?

The point is that when you think of the father of biology do you automatically think that a cornerstone of biology is that women are "deformed males"??? If you do, then you don't know much about female anatomy, and you are going to have some problems getting through even a high school biology class.

Are you serious? Comparing some of the very wrong ideas about the anatomy from centuries ago to what we know now is absurd and irrelevant. You don't have a point at all, you have a strawman fallacy.

If you don't, then you should see and admit my point that when speaking of fundamentalism the vast majority of people don't go to the founder of the term, but to defining mark of the commonly used and understood definition, i.e. biblical statements are literally (as opposed to figuratively) true.

So what? Do you have a point?
----------------------------------

Galileo, considered by many to be the father of modern science; taught that the earth revolved around the sun before he had even proved the fact. Well, actually, this is a case of "The more things change the more they stay the same." Guess modern scientists are taking their queues from Galileo after all.

Do you mean the fact that Galileo was dead right is why modern scientists should take their queues from him?

shnarkle: No, the fact that Galileo was dead right is why modern scientists SHOULDN'T take their queues from him.

LOL. That makes no sense at all.

No, the fact that his hunch was right isn't enough. He needed to PROVE his hunch.

It wasn't a hunch, it was an observation of the evidence, not some whimsical notion he pulled out of his a$$.

The whole reason Galileo came under such scrutiny from the Church was because he was teaching this as a fact PRIOR to PROVING IT!

Sorry, that isn't true at all, it was when he published the evidence did the Church step in. Try getting your facts straight.

How can you ask me "Do you mean...etc" when I stated "before he had even proved the fact. "?

The fact you don't appear to know what you're talking about.
----------------------------------
They do.

shnarkle: Yes, they do the exact same thing. They speculate and then through some unknown manipulation that they can plainly see in their religious opponents, but not in themselves; they turn this into a fact WITHOUT PROOF.

LOL. It would appear you know very little about how science works and how scientists work. It's no wonder you're so confused. No one turns anything into facts, that happens entirely on it's own when the evidence is presented.
------------------------
And, he didn't have to prove it as a fact

sharkle: And again, this shows that modern day scientists actually do take this queue from Galileo as well. To be crystal clear, in science one actually does have to supply proof/evidence/testing etc. Hunches aren't enough UNTIL PROVEN correct.

Again, you don't appear to know much about the process of science, hence whatever point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

The question then becomes, why do the religious have to maintain a standard which you seem to think scientists don't???

Scientists do indeed maintain standards, it's just that you have no clue what those standards are.

If as you say, ", he didn't have to prove it as a fact" then why do the religious have to be able to falsify the existence of God?

The religious have zero evidence for their gods, which is entirely different from having evidence. You don't appear to understand this very simple concept.
----------------------------
, he simply provided the evidence and it became one.

shnarkle: Yes! That's how he proved it was a fact!!!!!! However, he even signed a document agreeing to cease from teaching that the earth rotated around the sun until he could prove it.

Capitulating to the idiots of the Church has nothing to do with the earth rotating around the sun. Irrelevant.

Then proceeded to do just the opposite, and continued to teach that the earth rotated around the sun WITHOUT ENOUGH PROOF.

Wow, you really are clueless about Galileo.

This is what got him into so much trouble, i.e. he went back on his word. Modern scientists are taking their queues here as well. They make their conclusions,not based on the evidence; but who's funding what they're studying. This has been notoriously spotlighted repeatedly in the news for years. Scientists are retracting their assent to conclusions in peer reviewed journals because of this nonsense.

That is complete bullsh1t. Try learning something about how science works before making a fool of yourself.

Again, you seem to be a bit ignorant of the historical facts here.

LOL. You are talking about yourself.

I don't have a problem with Galileo proving that the earth rotates around the sun. I have a problem with him teaching it as a fact PRIOR TO PROVING WITH EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS A FACT. This is the EXACT same topic of this thread!!!

You've got that dead wrong, that isn't the case at all. You're quite confused.

In case you've forgotten again, the examples I gave are scientists who speculate the possibility of a wave function then WITHOUT PROOF claim with conviction that there actually is one. Why do we say this?

YOU say that because you have no clue how science works and are making up something that has nothing to do with that process, you are confused.

Because John Bell pointed out that the wave packet reduction is effectively floating out in nobody knows what with no reference whatsoever to anything(but especially in relation to the Shrodinger equation which ironically enough deals with, among other things; PROBABILITY) to give scientists any context for their theories, experiments etc. He reminds us that this is an integral part "of our most fundamental physical theory". To the layman, this means that this speculation is fundamental, and this doesn't hold water when applied to proving the existence of God, or the gods etc. and rightly so!

To the layman? No, to those who have no clue what they're talking about, which is the case here with you.

So why is it now acceptable to make speculation not just acceptable, but fundamental when it comes to quantum mechanics or Evolution???

The difference is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Simple really.

Oh, and by the way, we don't have to provide an in depth understanding of the material in order to understand the basic argument.

You have zero understanding of the material. None, nada, zippo. You're just talking out of your a$$. Clueless.

If you disagree,, then I can provide you with a link to the text of the bible and we can continue this discussion after you've read it along with the fundamental interpretation. Who knows, maybe that's what it would take for you to see the wordplay in the "Real Fundamentalist"

What needs to occur is that you really need to get a grasp as to how science works, because you are simply making a complete fool of yourself.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 4:40:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 2:22:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

shnarkle: Aristotle (biology) referred to women "deformed males".

Obviously misdiagnosed. Or, are you treating this as if it was personal and not a medical opinion?

shnarkle: Please try not to wander off the topic.

I am responding to YOUR words in YOUR thread. How can that not be on topic?

shnarkle: When it isn't the point of the topic, or the particular argument I'm making. Treating it as personal or not a medical opinion is irrelevant. See below.

The point is that when you think of the father of biology do you automatically think that a cornerstone of biology is that women are "deformed males"??? If you do, then you don't know much about female anatomy, and you are going to have some problems getting through even a high school biology class.

Are you serious? Comparing some of the very wrong ideas about the anatomy from centuries ago to what we know now is absurd and irrelevant.

shnarkle: My point exactly!!! It is absurd and irrelevant to dredge up some obscure wiki post of something the person who coined the term "fundamentalist", did a century ago.
------------

you should see and admit my point that when speaking of fundamentalism the vast majority of people don't go to the founder of the term, but to defining mark of the commonly used and understood definition, i.e. biblical statements are literally (as opposed to figuratively) true: :Galileo, considered by many to be the father of modern science; taught that the earth revolved around the sun before he had even proved the fact. Well, actually, this is a case of "The more things change the more they stay the same." Guess modern scientists are taking their queues from Galileo after all.

-------------------------

shnarkle: Galileo admitted himself that he didn't have enough evidence to prove the heliocentric theory (granted it was under duress): "while the topic was not inherently a matter of faith, the statements about it in Scripture were so by virtue of who said them"namely, the Holy Spirit. He conceded that if there were conclusive proof, "then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false." However, demonstrating that heliocentrism merely "saved the appearances" could not be regarded as SUFFICIENT to establish that it was physically real. Although he BELIEVED that the former may well have been possible, he had "very great doubts" that the latter would be, and in case of doubt it was not permissible to depart from the traditional interpretation of Scriptures.
Bellarmine found no problem with heliocentrism so long as it was treated as a purely hypothetical calculating device and not as a physically real phenomenon, but he did not regard it as permissible to advocate the latter unless it could be CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THROUGH CURRENT SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. This put Galileo in a difficult position, because he BELIEVED that the available evidence strongly favoured heliocentrism, and he wished to be able to publish his arguments. Sharratt (1994, p.115-25)Sharratt, Michael (1994). Galileo: Decisive Innovator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56671-1.

shnarkle: Galileo's believing that what he saw strongly favored heliocentrism isn't enough to PROVE it as a FACT. He had to do more (which he did!) Once there is sufficient evidence to conclusively prove it as a fact then it is truly according to the precepts of science; not when what evidence one has strongly favors one's belief. That's for the realm of the religious.
-------------
According to Maurice Finocchiaro, Ingoli had probably been commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy, and the essay provided the "chief direct basis" for the ban. The essay focused on eighteen physical and mathematical arguments against heliocentrism. It borrowed primarily from the arguments of Tycho Brahe, and it notedly mentioned Brahe's argument that heliocentrism required the stars to be much larger than the sun. Ingoli wrote that the great distance to the stars in the heliocentric theory "clearly proves ... the fixed stars to be of such size, as they may surpass or equal the size of the orbit circle of the Earth itself."]Graney, Christopher M. (2015), Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo, University of Notre Dame Press, ISBN 978-0268029883

shnarkle: Notice that these guys are using all the latest scientific evidence that they had available to them to refute Galileo???
-------------
Referring to Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini, physicist Pierre Duhem "suggests that in one respect, at least, Bellarmine had shown himself a better scientist than Galileo by disallowing the possibility of a 'strict proof of the earth's motion,' on the grounds that an astronomical theory merely 'saves the appearances' without necessarily revealing what 'really happens.'"McMullin, Ernan (2008). "Robert Bellarmine". In Gillispie, Charles. Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Scribner & American Council of Learned Societies.

shnakle: That's how science works! Score one for science!
------------
, he simply provided the evidence and it became one.

shnarkle: Yes! That's how he proved it was a fact!!!!!! However, he even signed a document agreeing to cease from teaching that the earth rotated around the sun until he could prove it.

Capitulating to the idiots of the Church has nothing to do with the earth rotating around the sun. Irrelevant.
shnarkle: Relevant when I'm pointing out that no matter how much evidence you can come up with to prove a point, if there is a competing theory with just as much evidence, if not more; then more evidence will be required until it can be conclusively proven to be a fact. This was not the case with Galileo, and it remains the case today with quantum mechanics and Evolution. The only difference is that now the Inquisitors are within the scientific community refusing to let any competing theories into the discussion and refusing to admit that they don't have enough evidence for their theories to be proven as factual.
-----------
Then proceeded to do just the opposite, and continued to teach that the earth rotated around the sun WITHOUT ENOUGH PROOF.

Wow, you really are clueless about Galileo.

This is what got him into so much trouble, i.e. he went back on his word. Modern scientists are taking their queues here as well. They make their conclusions,not based on the evidence; but who's funding what they're studying. This has been notoriously spotlighted repeatedly in the news for years. Scientists are retracting their assent to conclusions in peer reviewed journals because of this nonsense.

That is complete bullsh1t. Try learning something

DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 5:25:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 4:40:56 PM, shnarkle wrote:

shnarkle: When it isn't the point of the topic, or the particular argument I'm making. Treating it as personal or not a medical opinion is irrelevant. See below.

But, YOU have made it a point in YOUR thread.

<snipped for repeated nonsense>

shnarkle: Galileo admitted himself that he didn't have enough evidence to prove the heliocentric theory

That is false, you are just making up stuff that isn't even true.

(granted it was under duress): "while the topic was not inherently a matter of faith, the statements about it in Scripture were so by virtue of who said them"namely, the Holy Spirit.

Wrong, all words in the Bible were conceived and written by men. Try and get your facts straight.

Bellarmine found no problem with heliocentrism so long as it was treated as a purely hypothetical calculating device and not as a physically real phenomenon, but he did not regard it as permissible to advocate the latter unless it could be CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THROUGH CURRENT SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. This put Galileo in a difficult position, because he BELIEVED that the available evidence strongly favoured heliocentrism, and he wished to be able to publish his arguments. Sharratt (1994, p.115-25)Sharratt, Michael (1994). Galileo: Decisive Innovator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56671-1.

Well Duh! Of course the recent evidence was in favor of a Copernican system, but there was NO real evidence, that is what Galileo wanted to publish, the evidence.

Cardinal Bellarmine stated, "a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture as false."

In other words, he was afraid his faith would be jeopardized by facts.

shnarkle: Galileo's believing that what he saw strongly favored heliocentrism isn't enough to PROVE it as a FACT.

The facts he presented showed the Copernican system was wrong.

He had to do more (which he did!)

He did more because the Church denied the facts.

Once there is sufficient evidence to conclusively prove it as a fact then it is truly according to the precepts of science; not when what evidence one has strongly favors one's belief. That's for the realm of the religious.

That is pure bs, Galileo did NOT believe in the facts, he understood them. Huge difference. Believing is indeed the realm of the religious as is the denying of facts.
-------------
According to Maurice Finocchiaro, Ingoli had probably been commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy, and the essay provided the "chief direct basis" for the ban. The essay focused on eighteen physical and mathematical arguments against heliocentrism. It borrowed primarily from the arguments of Tycho Brahe, and it notedly mentioned Brahe's argument that heliocentrism required the stars to be much larger than the sun.

But, they had no clue as to the distances or that fact the Sun was a star. All you're managing to do is present irrelevant strawmen.

Ingoli wrote that the great distance to the stars in the heliocentric theory "clearly proves ... the fixed stars to be of such size, as they may surpass or equal the size of the orbit circle of the Earth itself."]Graney, Christopher M. (2015), Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo, University of Notre Dame Press, ISBN 978-0268029883

shnarkle: Notice that these guys are using all the latest scientific evidence that they had available to them to refute Galileo???

No, they were doing no such thing, they were playing the denial/ignorance cards.
-------------
Referring to Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini, physicist Pierre Duhem "suggests that in one respect, at least, Bellarmine had shown himself a better scientist than Galileo by disallowing the possibility of a 'strict proof of the earth's motion,' on the grounds that an astronomical theory merely 'saves the appearances' without necessarily revealing what 'really happens.'"McMullin, Ernan (2008). "Robert Bellarmine". In Gillispie, Charles. Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Scribner & American Council of Learned Societies.

shnakle: That's how science works! Score one for science!

LOL. That's just plain stupid, dude. Bellarmine was a Cardinal, a theologian, not a scientist.

shnarkle: Relevant when I'm pointing out that no matter how much evidence you can come up with to prove a point, if there is a competing theory with just as much evidence, if not more; then more evidence will be required until it can be conclusively proven to be a fact. This was not the case with Galileo, and it remains the case today with quantum mechanics and Evolution.

Once again, you show your massive ignorance about science. Both QM and Evolution are two of the most successful theories science has ever produced. Evolution is a fact, sorry you don't understand that.

The only difference is that now the Inquisitors are within the scientific community refusing to let any competing theories into the discussion and refusing to admit that they don't have enough evidence for their theories to be proven as factual.

More complete bullsh1t. It is religious morons that don't understand evolution are the ones who deny it. Try and get your facts straight, but first, try and understand what a fact is.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 8:49:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Shnarkle, participating in Religion are several members who understand the history, philosophy and methods of science very well, and certainly better than you do.

When I saw how little you knew, and how little you wanted to learn, I terminated our conversation, because to continue it would have meant treating your systematic, self-satisfied ignorance with scorn and ridicule: there's no other way to respond.

Unless you rethink your approach in this thread, that is what you'll continue to face. You may blame member attitude for it, but the root cause is your own self-satisfied ignorance about science.

If you find such scorn and ridicule uncomfortable, you cannot stop it by acting outraged. You will need to ask questions: not questions where you presume you know the answer, but questions in which you admit you don't. Otherwise it'll continue for as long as members wish to engage your ignorant assertions, and some are very patient about ridiculing ignorance, as I am not.

If you want to change the tone of your thread by asking a better class of question, the key question you need to ask is: How does science recognise knowledge?

The way science does it is very different to the way religious doctrine recognises knowledge. And thinking they're the same is why your comparison is failing. The members who can see that are pointing it out in various ways, and until you see it they'll continue to do so.

I hope that may (eventually) be useful to you.
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 11:16:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 8:49:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Shnarkle, participating in Religion are several members who understand the history, philosophy and methods of science very well, and certainly better than you do.

When I saw how little you knew, and how little you wanted to learn, I terminated our conversation, because to continue it would have meant treating your systematic, self-satisfied ignorance with scorn and ridicule: there's no other way to respond.

Unless you rethink your approach in this thread, that is what you'll continue to face. You may blame member attitude for it, but the root cause is your own self-satisfied ignorance about science.

If you find such scorn and ridicule uncomfortable, you cannot stop it by acting outraged. You will need to ask questions: not questions where you presume you know the answer, but questions in which you admit you don't. Otherwise it'll continue for as long as members wish to engage your ignorant assertions, and some are very patient about ridiculing ignorance, as I am not.

If you want to change the tone of your thread by asking a better class of question, the key question you need to ask is: How does science recognise knowledge?

The way science does it is very different to the way religious doctrine recognises knowledge. And thinking they're the same is why your comparison is failing. The members who can see that are pointing it out in various ways, and until you see it they'll continue to do so.

I hope that may (eventually) be useful to you.

shnarkle: You really ought to look at the original post for this thread. First off, that is what this thread is about. When people decide that they'd rather enlighten me about the finer points of the scientific method, they should first address what's actually being presented, then take a position on that topic, and then defend it. That isn't what's happening here by some who think that I need a refresher course in the difference between science and religion. Very few people even seem to be able to comprehend what this thread is even about, and go off on wild goose chases thinking that somehow I need to know all this when it isn't even an accurate assessment of what I'm posting.

Secondly, this isn't about me. If you or anyone else believes that they can refute what I've posted concerning the topic of this post, I"d dearly like to see anyone refute it with a coherent, logical argument, preferably relevant to what I've posted. Most people spend their time focusing on me when all they have to do is address and then refute what I've posted. How difficult should that be? Instead, they focus on who said what rather than what he actually said. It's all about deflection, and going off on some irrelevant tangeant. This isn't a forum on science. I'm not even presenting a scientific argument here for crying out loud. I'm pointing out that there are some in the scientific community who make claims that are justifiably accurate towards the religious perspective when they(the religious) think that they can prove the existence of God by pointing to "all of creation" as if this is sufficient evidence to prove God's existence. It clearly isn't. What's so difficult about that to understand? What great and extensive knowledge of science does one need in order to understand that???

Furthermore, the first quote presented spotlights an internal inconsistency that should be evident to anyone that can understand rudimentary English, namely that if something isn't fundamental, then why is it referred to as fundamental? This again doesn't require an in depth knowledge of science at all. All that is required is the merest effort to develop some rudimentary reading comprehension skills. Berlinski makes a compelling point which no one has addressed. I gave examples to back up what he's saying and no one even seems to have a clue what I'm talking about.

Look: Fundamentalist crack pot: "All of creation points to a Creator."
Scientist: Well, no. We need more evidence. Creation may linguistically imply a Creator, but it doesn't produce a Creator that we can observe. We are not able to falsify the Creator, therefore there is no proof."

Shnarkle: I pointed out that without sufficient evidence, there is no proof for the existence of God,and this scenario makes sense. Scientists are quite right to point this out. Some people decided that it might be profitable explore the idea that I"m actually suggesting that scientists are somehow critical of the fundamentalist's view of literal interpretation of the bible. This is besides the point. This is what defines fundamentalism, but it isn't the point of the post. So they don't want to stop there so they continue to look for some obscure aspect of the person who coined the term that has nothing relevant to do with the commonly understood term whatsoever and thinks that's a point to build a case on.

I refuted their argument by doing the exact same thing with the father of science and the father of biology. Showing that this was absurd. They agreed, but only with my examples because for some reason when they did the exact same thing it was perfectly acceptable. Here again, this is a prime example of what I'm talking about. The ability to see the problem in others while a complete blindness to it in themselves. Is it any wonder they can't see it in science?

What you don't understand is that I'm not in this to win, but to figure out what the truth of the matter actually is. So from that standpoint I don't have a dog in this hunt. Those who want to defend science can't even look at what's presented without jumping to completely irrational conclusion which is a sure sign that they have way too much invested in this to see straight anymore. People need to sit back and take a powder.

They need to look at what I"m actually posting, instead of jumping to conclusions. Some are so desperate to argue with some idiotic fundamentalist that if they can't find one they just pretend that I'm one instead. I"m in another thread and some guy just jumps in and automatically assumes that I'm homophobic and starts attacking me. I ask a question spotlighting something strange about the scientific community and people go ballistic thinking that I"m some Creationist with an agenda when I"m nothing of the sort.

The problem is that when you think that you're beyond question, and that your authority and education entitles you to ignore a simple question, and instead heap scorn and condescension on others, then you've crossed over into the fundamentalist camp without even knowing it. I'm not even a fan of Berlinski. I'd actually like to see this whole argument knocked down, but no one is up to the task here. People just want to sit around and troll and talk smack instead.

IF you'd like to review these posts and show me how these people are refuting, or even addressing what I've presented, I'd like to see it. Believe me, I"d truly like to see it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 11:19:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 11:16:17 PM, shnarkle wrote:
I'm not in this to win, but to figure out what the truth of the matter actually is.

If that's true, please list all the questions you've asked in this thread that aren't rhetorical -- i.e. where you think the answer isn't already settled. These would be questions where you don't know the answer, and are looking for more information, rather than seeking to refute answers other than the ones you've already assumed or concluded are true by default.
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 12:37:32 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 11:16:17 PM, shnarkle wrote:
Here's just one prime example of what I'm talking about.

Exhibit A.

"shnarkle: The argument isn't between the accuracy of the two fields of study, but the fact that when the field of theology engages in this type of behavior, the scientists are full of contempt,but when the scientists themselves do the exact same thing..."

Shnarkle: Note that I've just respectfully begun to attempt to explain what I'm actually talking about here so as not to confuse anyone. For a better sense of what I'm talking about I'll just reiterate that when the religious think that they've come up with a proof for God they aren't engaging in science or the scientific method. Some of them, to their credit are even able to admit this. Believe me, I get just as tired as the next guy when some traveling evangelist comes along and wants to enlighten me on his newest understanding of the good book and to let me in on this fantastic secret of the real true way to know that God exists..blah, blah, blah. This is what I get for a response...

"...Well, you're lacking some evidence -- okay, you're lacking all the evidence, and some critical information too. Firstly, you haven't quoted a single source representative of 'the scientists' showing contempt for Biblical literalism..."

shnarkle: Once again, I need to point out that this isn't about Science critiquing the methods of textual criticism employed by theologians. It is about one of the most commonly known and tediously endured phenomenon known to man, namely listening to some blow hard traveling evangelist tell us that they have conclusive proof of the existence of God. One doesn't have to be a scientist to know this is rubbish! Who hasn't had a traveling evangelist come to their door with this "good news? How many have documented these meetings? Is this really necessary? Of course this is where my opponent is going with this for the salient reason that he isn't reading what I'm posting in the first place. He's just working on building a case against some fundamentalist who isn't even involved in this thread. He continues...

"...rather than (say) methodological or factual disagreement. Secondly, you haven't shown that any scientist believes any scientific model inerrant."

shnarkle: For the salient reason that it isn't the topic of this post. Is that too simple too understand? I wouldn't think of making the claim. Regardless, we have to read the rest of this...

"And you won't be able to produce that evidence. Let me tell you why.

1) Scientists do not believe scientific models inerrant. Their whole epistemological frame is that knowledge is built from observation, not tradition, theory or revelation.

2) One of the properties of scientific inquiry is that once an idea is falsified, it's falsified forever. So new models can replace old models, but old discarded models will never return to use. This explains why, when scientists discard a model based on contrary evidence, they dismiss it thereafter.

As you know, science has dismissed numerous claims from Genesis. It is only scientific ignorance that makes Christian fundamentalists think they can make science change its mind So what you are construing as contempt is in many cases epistemological dismissal of false ideas based on flawed methodology...."

Shnarkle: First off, as far as your summary of the finer points of science goes, I don't have any problem with any of it. It's all basically accurate. What is false is your assumption that I need a refresher course in rudimentary scientific concepts methodologies etc. This is tedious, not to mention boring and ultimately a waste of time. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that I'm not in any way shape or form suggesting that scientists don't have every right to be contemptuous of Christian fundamentalists who think that they can improve on the scientific method by a better understanding of the Judeo-christian bible. You may disagree yourself with that assessment, but I for one am plenty contemptuous of any one who thinks that they can prove the existence of God based on their exclusive knowledge of "the good book", or their enlightened interpretation of scriptures, etc. Unfortunately, this is besides the point of what my post is even about. All this is just simply to point out that the point isn't about the religious community over extending themselves into a field of study in which they know practically nothing, nor is it about the scientific community extending themselves beyond the boundaries of their field of study into textual criticism. It's about the fact that scientists are right to point out that attempting a scientific proof requires scientific methods, not a "higher criticism" of the bible. Why I should have to explain this is beyond me. I seriously doubt you would have any problem with anything I've posted so far on this post. But I have to be so careful how I say anything so as not to arouse some sort of suspicion that I'm what? secretly trying to sneak God into the equation? Trust me, I'm not. And if you want to start a thread explaining all that you've learned over the years in science, be my guest. Go for it. I've spent years studying science myself, but I'm not really interested in looking over all of that again, especially given that even though I may be getting a little long in the tooth, I can still remember the basics, and some of the not so basics. More importantly, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I'm not questioning established scientific methods. I'm not looking for a tutor for my science class. I did well in all the sciences in elementary, high school and college, in spite of all the drinking I may or may not have done. Thanks for the offer, but what I'd really like to see, if at all possible; is an honest attempt to actually look at what I"m posting instead of looking at this thread as an opportunity for you to show me that you know something about science. I don't care how much you know, I'm sure it's plenty and we're all really impressed with your ability to articulate and express such a charitable expression of assistance, but the only thing I require is a response to what this topic is actually about.

"I'm happy to explain why falsifying existing theories doesn't reinstitute old, discarded theories. Feel free to ask. Until you understand this, you won't understand why your reasoning is flawed. Based on your behaviour, I don't believe you'll care to learn, but if you ask, I will assist you."

shnarkle: I truly wish that I could accommodate you by asking you to explain all that to me, but it doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I don't need an explanation as to " why falsifying existing theories doesn't reinstitute old, discarded theories" for the simple reason that I know that to be true, I'm not contesting that fact, and most importantly it isn't relevant to what I'm posting. As much as you may believe or need it to be to the contrary, trust me it honestly doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I don't know how many times I should have to plead with you to believe me. I don't know how many times I should have to ask you to just go look at my original post to see that I'm not really scrutinizing the scientific method at all, but simply pointing out that some in the scientific community have made comments that spotlight a phenomenon that a lot of people are ignoring or are blissfully unaware of at all. They see the problem in others, but can't see it in themselves which ironically is summed up in the statement: "pull the 2 x 4 out of your own eye, before scrutinizing the splinter in your neighbor's." They don't want to do that. They'd rather spend time explaining the properties of carbon dating the plank in their eye and the effect it has on optics, and the fact that if we don't consider this we don't really understand what we're talking about because that's what the real topic d
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 2:35:36 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 11:19:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 11:16:17 PM, shnarkle wrote:
I'm not in this to win, but to figure out what the truth of the matter actually is.
If that's true, please list all the questions you've asked in this thread that aren't rhetorical.
*crickets*

By your evasion, Shnarkle, I understand that you have asked no sincere, non-rhetorical questions.

So we can conclude from this that you are not diligently seeking truth, but dogmatically seeking to persuade people you know what you're talking about.

That's legitimate, as long as you can say how you'd know if you were wrong. If you can't say that, then you need to do more research.

I believe you need to do more research. Here's why.

Part A: Knowledge and Religion
1) Based on common Christian practice, define the difference, if any, between religious conjecture, religious conviction, and religious knowledge.
2) Based on your definition above, please complete the following multiple choice: a Christian fundamentalist is a Christian who treats the literal truth of the Bible as: a) conjecture, b) conviction, or c) knowledge.

Part B: Knowledge and Science
3) Now please explain the difference, if any, between a scientific conjecture, a scientific hypothesis, and a scientific theory.
4) Based on the definitions above and your knowledge of scientific practice, please complete this sentence: Before a scientific theory is accepted as knowledge, the following must occur: ...

In order to have a sensible discussion about scientific and religious knowledge you need to be able to answer all four close to right. Yet based on your comments to date, I believe you'll make a mistake on 1), it may lead to an error in 2), you'll be unable to answer 3) and will either evade or waffle on 4).

And that's why a constructive conversation with you on this topic is impossible. You are under-read, yet indifferent to the fact that you don't know enough to have the conversation in the first place.
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 3:15:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 12:37:32 AM, shnarkle wrote:
Here's just one prime example of what I'm talking about.
Exhibit A.
"shnarkle: The argument isn't between the accuracy of the two fields of study, but the fact that when the field of theology engages in this type of behavior, the scientists are full of contempt,but when the scientists themselves do the exact same thing..."
Shnarkle: Note that I've just respectfully begun to attempt to explain what I'm actually talking about here so as not to confuse anyone. For a better sense of what I'm talking about I'll just reiterate that when the religious think that they've come up with a proof for God they aren't engaging in science or the scientific method. Some of them, to their credit are even able to admit this. Believe me, I get just as tired as the next guy when some traveling evangelist comes along and wants to enlighten me on his newest understanding of the good book and to let me in on this fantastic secret of the real true way to know that God exists..blah, blah, blah. This is what I get for a response...
"...Well, you're lacking some evidence -- okay, you're lacking all the evidence, and some critical information too. Firstly, you haven't quoted a single source representative of 'the scientists' showing contempt for Biblical literalism..."
shnarkle: Once again, I need to point out that this isn't about Science critiquing the methods of textual criticism employed by theologians. It is about one of the most commonly known and tediously endured phenomenon known to man, namely listening to some blow hard traveling evangelist tell us that they have conclusive proof of the existence of God. One doesn't have to be a scientist to know this is rubbish! Who hasn't had a traveling evangelist come to their door with this "good news? How many have documented these meetings? Is this really necessary? Of course this is where my opponent is going with this for the salient reason that he isn't reading what I'm posting in the first place. He's just working on building a case against some fundamentalist who isn't even involved in this thread. He continues...

"...rather than (say) methodological or factual disagreement. Secondly, you haven't shown that any scientist believes any scientific model inerrant."
<crickets>

shnarkle: For the salient reason that it isn't the topic of this post. Is that too simple too understand? I wouldn't think of making the claim. Regardless, we have to read the rest of this... "And you won't be able to produce that evidence. Let me tell you why.

1) Scientists do not believe scientific models inerrant. Their whole epistemological frame is that knowledge is built from observation, not tradition, theory or revelation.
2) One of the properties of scientific inquiry is that once an idea is falsified, it's falsified forever. So new models can replace old models, but old discarded models will never return to use. This explains why, when scientists discard a model based on contrary evidence, they dismiss it thereafter.
As you know, science has dismissed numerous claims from Genesis. It is only scientific ignorance that makes Christian fundamentalists think they can make science change its mind So what you are construing as contempt is in many cases epistemological dismissal of false ideas based on flawed methodology...."

Shnarkle: First off, as far as your summary of the finer points of science goes, I don't have any problem with any of it. It's all basically accurate. What is false is your assumption that I need a refresher course in rudimentary scientific concepts methodologies etc. This is tedious, not to mention boring and ultimately a waste of time. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that I'm not in any way shape or form suggesting that scientists don't have every right to be contemptuous of Christian fundamentalists who think that they can improve on the scientific method by a better understanding of the Judeo-christian bible. You may disagree yourself with that assessment, but I for one am plenty contemptuous of any one who thinks that they can prove the existence of God based on their exclusive knowledge of "the good book", or their enlightened interpretation of scriptures, etc. Unfortunately, this is besides the point of what my post is even about. All this is just simply to point out that the point isn't about the religious community over extending themselves into a field of study in which they know practically nothing, nor is it about the scientific community extending themselves beyond the boundaries of their field of study into textual criticism. It's about the fact that scientists are right to point out that attempting a scientific proof requires scientific methods, not a "higher criticism" of the bible. Why I should have to explain this is beyond me. I seriously doubt you would have any problem with anything I've posted so far on this post. But I have to be so careful how I say anything so as not to arouse some sort of suspicion that I'm what? secretly trying to sneak God into the equation? Trust me, I'm not. And if you want to start a thread explaining all that you've learned over the years in science, be my guest. Go for it. I've spent years studying science myself, but I'm not really interested in looking over all of that again, especially given that even though I may be getting a little long in the tooth, I can still remember the basics, and some of the not so basics. More importantly, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I'm not questioning established scientific methods. I'm not looking for a tutor for my science class. I did well in all the sciences in elementary, high school and college, in spite of all the drinking I may or may not have done. Thanks for the offer, but what I'd really like to see, if at all possible; is an honest attempt to actually look at what I"m posting instead of looking at this thread as an opportunity for you to show me that you know something about science. I don't care how much you know, I'm sure it's plenty and we're all really impressed with your ability to articulate and express such a charitable expression of assistance, but the only thing I require is a response to what this topic is actually about.

and this is what I get for a response...

"I'm happy to explain why falsifying existing theories doesn't reinstitute old, discarded theories. Feel free to ask. Until you understand this, you won't understand why your reasoning is flawed. Based on your behaviour, I don't believe you'll care to learn, but if you ask, I will assist you."

shnarkle: I truly wish that I could accommodate you by asking you to explain all that to me, but it doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I don't need an explanation as to " why falsifying existing theories doesn't reinstitute old, discarded theories" for the simple reason that I know that to be true, I'm not contesting that fact, and most importantly it isn't relevant to what I'm posting. As much as you may believe or need it to be to the contrary, trust me it honestly doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I don't know how many times I should have to plead with you to believe me. I don't know how many times I should have to ask you to just go look at my original post to see that I'm not really scrutinizing the scientific method at all, but simply pointing out that some in the scientific community have made comments that spotlight a phenomenon that a lot of people are ignoring or are blissfully unaware of at all. They see the problem in others, but can't see it in themselves which ironically is summed up in the statement: "pull the 2 x 4 out of your own eye, before scrutinizing the splinter in your neighbor's." They don't want to do that. They'd rather spend time explaining the properties of carbon dating the plank in their eye and the effect it has on optics. I must be crazy so please teach me all you know...
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 4:10:34 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 2:35:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

I'm not in this to win, but to figure out what the truth of the matter actually is.
If that's true, please list all the questions you've asked in this thread that aren't rhetorical.
*crickets*

By your evasion, Shnarkle, I understand that you have asked no sincere, non-rhetorical questions.

Cute. Rather than have you explain or waffle or deflect or just plain ignore why you even think a rhetorical or non rhetorical question is or isn't the criteria for determining whether one can find the truth, I'll just point out a few simple facts.

Fact # 1.

I began this thread with a quote from John Bell, a physicist.

"So long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component [of
quantum mechanics] and so long as we do not know when and how it takes
over from the Schrodinger equation, we do not have an exact and
unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory." -
physicist, John Bell

Fact #2.
Not one person has commented on this quotation, or even so much as made a single reference to it. Oh, I take that back. There was a question: "Is there a particular science criticised?" to which all that I could think was, 'Gee, I'm obviously such an idiot. Why is this guy asking me this question in the first place?" So I had to go back to the original topic of the thread and look for myself because I don't even remember what this post is even about anymore, and what do I see but this quote by John Bell. Whoa! What is he saying? I don't know. Hmm. what should I do? I know. I"ll see if there's someone else who might be interested in posting their opinion on what they think this might mean. Oh, but wait. That's what I already did do. So why is this guy asking me what is he asking me? Well, dude. what do you think??? Is John Bell criticizing a particular science? So how come the claimed expert on scientific observation is asking me this question??? Hmm..........Could it be that he's really just copy and pasting whatever he can find to throw me off my game? Perhaps he's just really trying to high jack this thread and talk about what he wants to talk about. Maybe if he can get me to talk about what he wants to he can win an argument. Naw, I already admitted I was an idiot so what's the point in trying to win an argument from me? Sheesh. I've been looking around in this site for a while and most of what I see is the exact same crap people just talking smack. This is what it usually boils down to. No one really wants to help a guy out and talk about the topic of his thread, but they really can't come up with one on their own so they just prowl for someone with some initiative to come up with something they can find that is somehow related to all these files they have downloaded into their computer that they probably know nothing about.

Usually the way I know that they're pretending to be someone that they're not is that when I ask them questions about their position they change the subject, or they just find some way to deflect the question unless they can find the answer, but even then they don't seem to be able to. The other way I can tell is the way that their writing style will all of a sudden change considerably from intelligent to remedial 'tard for no apparent reason. It's like yer talking to someone you think is rather intelligent and then BAM he's just downed a quart of Scotch and can't think, type, or even figure out how to go back to the first post and make a rudimentary observation of what I posted. What to do? I know! How about if I suggest that we try and prove that this quote actually exists? What do our powers of scientific observation tell us? Is this something that can even be falsifiable? I mean where exactly is "cyberspace"? anyways? Has anyone ever seen it? Perhaps there's someone in this group that can explain to me all the intricate workings of the technological universe of cyberspace? Yeah, that's what I want to find out about. That shouldn't be too tough considering that this is the religion section of the Forums that's just where I'd expect to find an expert willing to tell me all about cyberspace. Oh and I"ve got this burning question about politics so I'll check out the Art section and I bet there'll be someone there who'll want to enlighten me. Of course the best place to find expert advice on science would have to be here in the religion forum; makes perfect sense since that's really what science is after all. At least that's what it's become. Instead of a bunch of guys arguing about whether or not Isaac was really deceived by Jacob, or how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, we can talk about whether or not a fundamental theory is really fundamental, but wait a minute. I'm way in over my head because I can't really be asking a question like that because I don't even know how to ask a scientific question in the first place. I'm already disqualified from asking the question because how can one ask a scientific question when they are so utterly ignorant about science? I know! I'll ask a question, not about science per se, but about a scientist, and actually I won't even ask a question about a scientist, but about something he said, and not so much about anything scientific, but just some simple aspect of it (say) why this guy says that something that is essentially meaningless is fundamental? That shouldn't be too tough for all the brilliant scientific minds here to come up with a simple answer.

No such luck. Instead, all they can come up with is a question as to whether or not there is a particular science being criticized. Beats me dude. Why ask me I'm too stupid to even look back at the quote I provided from the physicist talking about quantum mechanics...
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 5:07:23 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 2:35:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 11:19:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 11:16:17 PM, shnarkle wrote:
So I'd just like to point out a few things here that don't really add up...

"Is there a particular science criticised

shnarkle: If you check the quote it says:

Notice that I went out of my way to copy it here for their convenience.

""So long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component [of
quantum mechanics] and so long as we do not know when and how it takes
over from the Schrodinger equation, we do not have an exact and
unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory." -
physicist, John Bell"

shnarkle: : What does that tell you? This isn't marine biology is it? More importantly, the specific problem that this physicist is pointing out is that this most fundamental physical theory isn't really fundamental at all.
------------------------------------
and explain how that is relevant to topic.

shnarkle: It's relevant to this topic because it is the topic. It's the first quote I provided which documents that this is what the topic is in reference to .

Notice that my response was not only accurate and concise, but in no way degrading whatsoever, unless one were to take into consideration that the person I'm conversing with here just asked me to explain how the topic of my thread was relevant. He then follows this up with something that isn't too far from an honest intelligent response...

"What makes it fundamental is that it is the most parsimonious theory that can accurately and specifically predict everything presently observed."

Notice that this has some striking differences to my first quotation, e.g. "we do not have an exact and unambiguous formulation". which indicates that he does have an idea of what science is supposed to look like. My next response is more of an observation offering a possible explanation as to what may be the possible problem...

"And this is precisely the problem, isn't it??? Euclidian geometry was the most parsimonious way to explain things for a while as well, but at some point one needs to abandon theories that don't really explain anything"

What on earth are you talking about?

shnarkle I'm talking about the fact that when the most parsimonious theory becomes inaccurate and doesn't fit with scientific observation, it needs to be abandoned. This theory is considered fundamental, but admittedly doesn't really explain much anymore according to Bell. Ambiguous and inexact theories tend to do that."

One of the things to note here is that all this part of the thread is really doing is establishing an understanding of what is "Given". This will prove to be impossible because our poser is adamantly obsessed with scientific methodologies themselves rather than how they fit into the topic of this thread. He's already on the defense because he wants to know if there is any criticism of a particular science going on, and that is a no-no and he should know because he's the expert in all things scientific. Let's not fool ourselves and think that we can forget that, especially when we have the keen eyes of this scientist watching everything that flashes across his supremely objective and oh so scientific screen. Since he uses only the most up to date state of the art scientific equipment his high definition screen bombards him with so much information that only a superhuman scientist like him can even tolerate such information, hence his exclamation: "What on earth are you talking about?"

Again it should be noted here that at this point in the thread I'm not even really presenting much of an argument yet. Just still trying to get him to understand what the thread is about which proves to be not just a daunting task, but with someone with as little faith as I have, it's ultimately impossible...

Since I'm such an idiot to begin with, I feel kinda stupid even asking, but given the importance of scientific observation in science wouldn't this same ability somehow translate into other fields, such as say logic or debate? I'm mean if a scientist is intently studying two Petri dishes with labels on them, wouldn't he be able to look at them to determine which one is labeled "bacteria" and which one is labeled "moss"? I mean, if he can't do that then how is he supposed to be able to write or type what's going on and publish this in a scientific journal? I'm not saying that the bacteria necessarily looks exactly like the moss either and I'm not saying that this guy has to label them, or even learn how to read and write if he doesn't want to that's up to him. It's his decision; he's the scientist not me. If that's the case then I guess I really should be ashamed of myself to assume that anyone much less a scientist should have to look at a quote identifying a physicist commenting on quantum mechanics. No, that's not how science works. Science is all about asking questions, and me as the idiot need to just shut up until I'm spoken to. I need to learn that the scientist is the one who asks all the smart, intelligent and oh so scientific questions like "is there a particular science criticized?" or "how is this relevant to the topic?", or "What on earth are you talking about?" I should have recognized that these were all brilliant questions that only a brilliant scientist would even bother to ask in the first place. I'm truly so fortunate to have my humble posts being read by such a well respected and distinguished man of science. I can only wait with quiet and expectant glee for his next reply to grace my dingy cracked and flickering humble screen.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 5:31:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 2:35:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 11:19:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 11:16:17 PM, shnarkle wrote:
I'm not in this to win, but to figure out what the truth of the matter actually is.
If that's true, please list all the questions you've asked in this thread that aren't rhetorical.
*crickets*
And yet more... *crickets*

At 6/26/2016 2:35:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Part A: Knowledge and Religion
1) Based on common Christian practice, define the difference, if any, between religious conjecture, religious conviction, and religious knowledge.
2) Based on your definition above, please complete the following multiple choice: a Christian fundamentalist is a Christian who treats the literal truth of the Bible as: a) conjecture, b) conviction, or c) knowledge.

Part B: Knowledge and Science
3) Now please explain the difference, if any, between a scientific conjecture, a scientific hypothesis, and a scientific theory.
4) Based on the definitions above and your knowledge of scientific practice, please complete this sentence: Before a scientific theory is accepted as knowledge, the following must occur: ...
*crickets*

So in a thread about science, religion and knowledge, a member unable to answer basic questions about science, religion and knowledge nevertheless has no sincere, open questions about... science... or religion... or knowledge. :p

See, Shnarkle. This is why you can't have nice things. :(
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 1:15:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 1:38:56 AM, shnarkle wrote:
"So long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component [of
quantum mechanics] and so long as we do not know when and how it takes
over from the Schrodinger equation, we do not have an exact and
unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory." -
physicist, John Bell

If this is so, why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?

"The wave function of the universe cannot be seen, measured, assessed,
or tested. It is purely a theoretical artifact. Physicists have found
it remarkably easy to pass from speculation about the wave function of
the universe to the conviction that there is a wave function of the
universe. This is nothing more than an endearing human weakness. Less
endearing by far is their sullen contempt toward religious argument
when it is engaged in precisely the same attempt to reach by
speculation what cannot be grasped in any other way". -David
Berlinski

This is straight out plagiarism from pages 93-94 of "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions" by David Berlinski. He basically quote mines John Bell. Bell is not disputing that quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory in physics, only lamenting that we don't have a complete mathematical description of wave packet reduction as yet. There is a gap in our knowledge. So?

Do you have an argument of your own or do you just regurgitate other non-scientists publications without attribution?

In answer to Berlinksi's question (not yours):

If this is so, why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental? I'm just asking.

http://www.talkreason.org...

Answer: because quantum mechanics works, and it works at a level of precision not even imaginable in religion; because no theory of physical reality inherent in any religion works to a remotely comparable extent or at all. Berlinski's "I'm just asking" is verbal sniping. It delights militant theists, because they share the delusion that any uncertainty in science increases the certainty of their own narratives. It delights such rabid anti-secularist journalists as Ann Coulter, whom Berlinski thanks for having helped with the publication of his book. It is the kind of false dichotomy Coulter must have learned from other fellows of the ID citadel, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, where Berlinski is a senior fellow. If evolution is wrong, the Gospel of John is true. No?

Notice the attribution given by me? Try some intellectual honesty next time you post.
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 1:44:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 5:31:14 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/26/2016 2:35:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 11:19:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 11:16:17 PM, shnarkle wrote:
I'm not in this to win, but to figure out what the truth of the matter actually is.
If that's true, please list all the questions you've asked in this thread that aren't rhetorical.

How about we start with the first question from my first post which you ignored.

"If this is so, why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?"

Note: The title of this topic is of course: "Who is the real fundamentalist?" which given the comment posted by David Berlinski spotlights that this is a play on the word "fundamental" So how is the first question in the topic answered? By pointing out the obvious, and then instead of answering the question(which has long since soared over his head, left the gravitational pull of earth and is well on its way past Pluto) our enlightened respondent decides that we all need a history lesson in the basics of physics...

'Fundamental' in science doesn't mean the same as 'fundamentalist', Schnarkle...."

Note: Give Einstein a prize or perhaps our wordsmith would prefer that we cook the "fatted calf" in his honor. Stay tuned for the fascinating history lesson in physics which follows...

"In physics, a fundamental theory isn't claimed to be absolutely true -- it remains a theory, and can be refuted or extended by new observation. What makes it fundamental is that it is the most parsimonious theory that can accurately and specifically predict everything presently observed. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com......]

So for a long time, an atom was the fundamental particle of matter. Every observed behaviour of matter could be explained by the electromechanics of atoms.

Nevertheless, the discovery of radiation, and some odd behaviours of light changed the theory, and atoms are no longer fundamental particles in physics, though they remain so in chemistry."

Gee thanks for that enlightening tour of what you think is so important about fundamental theories and fundamental particles of matter. Would you care to take that and make a point as it relates to the original question now or are we just supposed to sit in awe at your ability to cut and paste? Again you're just pointing out the obvious here. We're all well aware and can see that as theories outgrow their usefulness they need to be augmented or discarded. This is simply dancing around the question asked as if this answers the question. In other words, you're simply begging a different question. You honed in on the word "physical theory", but ignored "our" which is referring specifically to the quote by Bell. Please go and look up what "begging the question" means because I don't want you to think that I'm simply begging you to answer this question (although I practically am, sad as it is to say it) Here's the question again for your convenience:

"why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?"

Note to reader: I suppose I should mention that this is in relation to the quote by Bell which doesn't require a history lesson. We need only go back as far as the historical statement by Bell himself; this is more than sufficient.

We all know that you aren't ever going to address this question because you don't even understand it to begin with. The primary reason for this is that it is a question for logic(not to mention English usage of words), which you don't seem to be familiar with. Since that's the case what you will do is deflect by asking a series of your own questions which you think have anything to do with anything relevant to this topic case in point....(see blather below)

" At 6/26/2016 2:35:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Part A: Knowledge and Religion
1) Based on common Christian practice, define the difference, if any, between religious conjecture, religious conviction, and religious knowledge.
2) Based on your definition above, please complete the following multiple choice: a Christian fundamentalist is a Christian who treats the literal truth of the Bible as: a) conjecture, b) conviction, or c) knowledge.

Part B: Knowledge and Science
3) Now please explain the difference, if any, between a scientific conjecture, a scientific hypothesis, and a scientific theory.
4) Based on the definitions above and your knowledge of scientific practice, please complete this sentence: Before a scientific theory is accepted as knowledge, the following must occur: ...
*crickets*

Note: from all this our enlightened respondent then concludes that this thread is about science, religion and knowledge when in point of fact he has just high jacked the thread and decided to talk about what he wants to talk about because the question was (and still is) " why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?"

": So in a thread about science, religion and knowledge, a member unable to answer basic questions about science, religion and knowledge nevertheless has no sincere, open questions about... science... or religion... or knowledge. :p"

And a member unable to answer the question asked, e.g. "why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?", but instead deems it more appropriate to simply high jack this thread and engage in Ad Hominem obviously has no sincere desire to engage in honest debate.

In point of fact, he is preaching, has an agenda, and is so blinded by his mythical god of Science that he can do nothing but defend it to the death.

"Their myth is called the Missing Link. They know nothing of their own
argument except that it breaks down somewhere."


shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 2:59:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 1:15:08 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/24/2016 1:38:56 AM, shnarkle wrote:
"So long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component [of
quantum mechanics] and so long as we do not know when and how it takes
over from the Schrodinger equation, we do not have an exact and
unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory." -
physicist, John Bell

If this is so, why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?

"The wave function of the universe cannot be seen, measured, assessed,
or tested. It is purely a theoretical artifact. Physicists have found
it remarkably easy to pass from speculation about the wave function of
the universe to the conviction that there is a wave function of the
universe. This is nothing more than an endearing human weakness. Less
endearing by far is their sullen contempt toward religious argument
when it is engaged in precisely the same attempt to reach by
speculation what cannot be grasped in any other way". -David
Berlinski

This is straight out plagiarism from pages 93-94 of "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions" by David Berlinski.

shnarkle: Give the English professor a prize. Yeah ya caught me red handed. So now that the plagiarism Nazi has done his job. How about answering the question?
----------------
He basically quote mines John Bell. Bell is not disputing that quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory in physics

shnarkle: Neither is Berlinski, or I or anyone else so far as I can tell. The quote is quite clear that it is the most fundamental theory. Give the whiz kid another point for reading comprehension skills.
-----------

, only lamenting that we don't have a complete mathematical description of wave packet reduction as yet. There is a gap in our knowledge. So?

shnarkle: So, "They know nothing of their own argument except that it breaks down somewhere."-- Jimi Hendrix
So they don't know how big that gap is, nor do they have any clue to how big the gaps are in theology which they have no problem scorning with contempt.

So read the next quote by Berlinski Sherlock. He's pointing out that Scientists are guilty of the exact same nonsense as the religious.
------------

Do you have an argument of your own or do you just regurgitate other non-scientists publications without attribution?

shnarkle: I presented a few later on, or are you still searching for more attributions?
------------

In answer to Berlinksi's question (not yours):

If this is so, why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental? I'm just asking.

http://www.talkreason.org...

Answer: because quantum mechanics works, and it works at a level of precision not even imaginable in religion;

shanrkle: That's rich! The Hindu religion alone has over three hundred and thirty million deities. Let's see the religious are supposed to be so lame because they don't pay enough attention to the scientific facts. They waste too much time in their vain imaginations, but now they can't even imagine a level of precision that what? approaches the infinite?
---------------
because no theory of physical reality inherent in any religion works to a remotely comparable extent or at all.

shnarkle: Please document which religions are being referred to here as I'm not familiar with any theories of physical reality that are inherent in any of the religions, at least none that are presented as a theory. apples and oranges
------------

Berlinski's "I'm just asking" is verbal sniping. It delights militant theists,

You left out militant atheists, agnostic, and yours truly a militant skeptic. What would be delightful is an honest answer to the questions asked.
-------------

because they share the delusion that any uncertainty in science increases the certainty of their own narratives.

shnarkle: In my case, uncertainty.
-------------

It delights such rabid anti-secularist journalists as Ann Coulter, whom Berlinski thanks for having helped with the publication of his book. It is the kind of false dichotomy Coulter must have learned from other fellows of the ID citadel, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, where Berlinski is a senior fellow.

shnarkle: More boring Ad Hominem. <yawn>
-----------
If evolution is wrong, the Gospel of John is true. No?


shanrkle: No.
--------------

Notice the attribution given by me? Try some intellectual honesty next time you post.

Notice the quotes I just posted with an attribution? Go look it up yourself. Let me tell you why I don't necessarily care to. The first person to respond immediately after ignoring the question asked begins attacking the oh so odd and dishonest fellow Berlnski. I shouldn't have posted the attribution there either. Anyone can google any part of a quote and find out who said it. It isn't rocket science to figure out who said what. It doesn't really matter to the content of what's being debated. Quote Adolf HIttler, Lennin, Mother Teresa, Jack the Ripper for all I care. I don't care who said what. I'm just looking at WHAT they said.

I don't need a biography of the guy who coined the term "fundamentalist" to know what the term means, as some seem to think. I didn't know the forums section was being graded. Does this go on my permanent record? Sounds great to me. Maybe it will spotlight the hypocrisy of those who can't seem to pay attention to the content of the post, but instead choose to obsess on the character of the poster's attributed quotations, punctuation etc.

I posted this thread in a bit of a rush and got side tracked. I attributed Berlinski's name at the bottom which is where the really meaty question is located. You're right. I didn't set the thread up correctly. It was misleading. It really isn't clear that Berlinski asked the question "why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?" It could be construed to be a question that I asked. It's such a brilliant question that I secretly wanted people to think that I came up with it all by myself. Naw, the reason is that coming from such an odd and dishonest fellow as Berlinski, I was attempting to distance him from the question in order to fool people into thinking that it was an honest normal question.

So sew buttons on yer underwear, or sue me.

Better yet, perhaps how about?....naw, why bother engaging in a discussion when there's so much opportunity to perfect the high art of trolling.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 3:04:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 2:59:52 PM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/26/2016 1:15:08 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/24/2016 1:38:56 AM, shnarkle wrote:
"So long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component [of
quantum mechanics] and so long as we do not know when and how it takes
over from the Schrodinger equation, we do not have an exact and
unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory." -
physicist, John Bell

If this is so, why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?

"The wave function of the universe cannot be seen, measured, assessed,
or tested. It is purely a theoretical artifact. Physicists have found
it remarkably easy to pass from speculation about the wave function of
the universe to the conviction that there is a wave function of the
universe. This is nothing more than an endearing human weakness. Less
endearing by far is their sullen contempt toward religious argument
when it is engaged in precisely the same attempt to reach by
speculation what cannot be grasped in any other way". -David
Berlinski

This is straight out plagiarism from pages 93-94 of "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions" by David Berlinski.

shnarkle: Give the English professor a prize. Yeah ya caught me red handed. So now that the plagiarism Nazi has done his job. How about answering the question?
----------------
He basically quote mines John Bell. Bell is not disputing that quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory in physics

shnarkle: Neither is Berlinski, or I or anyone else so far as I can tell. The quote is quite clear that it is the most fundamental theory. Give the whiz kid another point for reading comprehension skills.
-----------

, only lamenting that we don't have a complete mathematical description of wave packet reduction as yet. There is a gap in our knowledge. So?

shnarkle: So, "They know nothing of their own argument except that it breaks down somewhere."-- Jimi Hendrix
So they don't know how big that gap is, nor do they have any clue to how big the gaps are in theology which they have no problem scorning with contempt.

So read the next quote by Berlinski Sherlock. He's pointing out that Scientists are guilty of the exact same nonsense as the religious.
------------

Do you have an argument of your own or do you just regurgitate other non-scientists publications without attribution?

shnarkle: I presented a few later on, or are you still searching for more attributions?
------------

In answer to Berlinksi's question (not yours):

If this is so, why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental? I'm just asking.

http://www.talkreason.org...

Answer: because quantum mechanics works, and it works at a level of precision not even imaginable in religion;

shanrkle: That's rich! The Hindu religion alone has over three hundred and thirty million deities. Let's see the religious are supposed to be so lame because they don't pay enough attention to the scientific facts. They waste too much time in their vain imaginations, but now they can't even imagine a level of precision that what? approaches the infinite?
---------------
because no theory of physical reality inherent in any religion works to a remotely comparable extent or at all.

shnarkle: Please document which religions are being referred to here as I'm not familiar with any theories of physical reality that are inherent in any of the religions, at least none that are presented as a theory. apples and oranges
------------

Berlinski's "I'm just asking" is verbal sniping. It delights militant theists,

You left out militant atheists, agnostic, and yours truly a militant skeptic. What would be delightful is an honest answer to the questions asked.
-------------

because they share the delusion that any uncertainty in science increases the certainty of their own narratives.

shnarkle: In my case, uncertainty.
-------------

It delights such rabid anti-secularist journalists as Ann Coulter, whom Berlinski thanks for having helped with the publication of his book. It is the kind of false dichotomy Coulter must have learned from other fellows of the ID citadel, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, where Berlinski is a senior fellow.

shnarkle: More boring Ad Hominem. <yawn>
-----------
If evolution is wrong, the Gospel of John is true. No?


shanrkle: No.
--------------

Notice the attribution given by me? Try some intellectual honesty next time you post.

Notice the quotes I just posted with an attribution? Go look it up yourself. Let me tell you why I don't necessarily care to. The first person to respond immediately after ignoring the question asked begins attacking the oh so odd and dishonest fellow Berlnski. I shouldn't have posted the attribution there either. Anyone can google any part of a quote and find out who said it. It isn't rocket science to figure out who said what. It doesn't really matter to the content of what's being debated. Quote Adolf HIttler, Lennin, Mother Teresa, Jack the Ripper for all I care. I don't care who said what. I'm just looking at WHAT they said.

I don't need a biography of the guy who coined the term "fundamentalist" to know what the term means, as some seem to think. I didn't know the forums section was being graded. Does this go on my permanent record? Sounds great to me. Maybe it will spotlight the hypocrisy of those who can't seem to pay attention to the content of the post, but instead choose to obsess on the character of the poster's attributed quotations, punctuation etc.

I posted this thread in a bit of a rush and got side tracked. I attributed Berlinski's name at the bottom which is where the really meaty question is located. You're right. I didn't set the thread up correctly. It was misleading. It really isn't clear that Berlinski asked the question "why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?" It could be construed to be a question that I asked. It's such a brilliant question that I secretly wanted people to think that I came up with it all by myself. Naw, the reason is that coming from such an odd and dishonest fellow as Berlinski, I was attempting to distance him from the question in order to fool people into thinking that it was an honest normal question.

So sew buttons on yer underwear, or sue me.

Better yet, perhaps how about?....naw, why bother engaging in a discussion when there's so much opportunity to perfect the high art of trolling.
You haven't.
Stupidity=/=Trolling.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 3:32:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 2:59:52 PM, shnarkle wrote:
So read the next quote by Berlinski Sherlock. He's pointing out that Scientists are guilty of the exact same nonsense as the religious.

In other words, Berlinkski, who admits the religious are putting out nonsense, who is part of an organization with a religious agenda, claims scientists are doing the same thing he is doing. So, his opinion, based on his own logic, is nonsense.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 7:09:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 1:44:28 PM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/26/2016 5:31:14 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/26/2016 2:35:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 11:19:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2016 11:16:17 PM, shnarkle wrote:
I'm not in this to win, but to figure out what the truth of the matter actually is.
If that's true, please list all the questions you've asked in this thread that aren't rhetorical.
How about we start with the first question from my first post which you ignored.
"If this is so, why is our most fundamental physical theory fundamental?"

You're claiming that's not a rhetorical question?

How is it not rhetorical, when you've already posted the putative answer in your opening post? Here's my precis of your argument:

The most fundamental theory of physics is so-named because physicists believe it should explain everything. Yet they have not even proven their theory correct. So it's the same as a religious belief: they must be fundamentalists.

So that's a rhetorical question. You're asking it, believing you already know the answer. That's not a request for information, but a challenge to disprove.

Yet how might your argument be flawed?

Your argument might be flawed if you were mistaken in the way you understand how science distinguishes theory from knowledge. Especially, it might be flawed if you only knew how religious fundamentalism claimed knowledge from belief, and knew nothing else, and if you were so ignorant of the state of Physics that you had no understanding of the status of what you have called 'the most fundamental theory'. For example, if you had been informed on this matter by a commentator who wasn't science-trained, and wasn't a physicist or a research scientist of any sort, but a charlatan engaged by a dishonest organisation to hoodwink the public, and you'd researched nothing else, and took him at his word.

Your first (and really your only substantive) question was rhetorical, Shnarkle, and it wasn't ignored. But the substantive answers you've received have told you there's information you don't have, and rather than explore that information you've evaded and rejected it.

That would be fine if you yourself had knowledge about science and a method to test it. However you only have poorly-researched opinion, which rather than test, you have declared true until falsified. And the way you can know this is by attempting to answer the following questions, which so far you have evaded answering, and which I repeat below:

Part A: Knowledge and Religion
1) Based on common Christian practice, define the difference, if any, between religious conjecture, religious conviction, and religious knowledge.
2) Based on your definition above, please complete the following multiple choice: a Christian fundamentalist is a Christian who treats the literal truth of the Bible as: a) conjecture, b) conviction, or c) knowledge.

Part B: Knowledge and Science
3) Now please explain the difference, if any, between a scientific conjecture, a scientific hypothesis, and a scientific theory.
4) Based on the definitions above and your knowledge of scientific practice, please complete this sentence: Before a scientific theory is accepted as knowledge, the following must occur: ...

And the fact that you avoid answering them indicates that you know you cannot, and do not wish to admit you cannot. So like Berlinski, you are being dishonest about what you do and do not know. And like Berlinski you are also promoting self-satisfied ignorance you will not test, and will not admit is ignorance.

And while honest ignorance can see respectful assistance, and knowledgable dishonesty can see evidenced disagreement, ignorant dishonesty only ever earns scorn and ridicule, because it's the circular and airless world of a buffoon: the ignorance supports the dishonesty, while the dishonesty defends the ignorance.

So that's why I said you'll be damaging your own thread until you start asking questions to which you admit you don't know the answers.

And the question you posed at top wasn't one of them.