Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science

Likeme
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 7:38:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Have you heard about the popular science? Popular science is science that is designed to appeal to the general public, rather than just the initiated.Stephen Hawking is one intellectual who has benefited from writing in a way that is designed to appeal more to the masses than just to academics. See more here if you like http://vulgar.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 9:54:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I thought 'A Brief History of Time' was farcical to be quite honest. I mean, sure, it might have generated interest, but in a wholly dishonest way. Basically, the book was Stephen Hawking comparing himself to Einstein, trying to raise himself above him, and failing. There was even a horribly giddy reference to his useless sex organs thrown in, on top of his slating Einstein's political views, and more or less just positing science as the one true way forward in general, philosophy nonsensical. Funny, then, I thought, that his exposition consisted for the most part of reaching into a black hole, contrasted against Einstein's defining light.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 1:17:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/21/2013 7:38:22 AM, Likeme wrote:
Have you heard about the popular science? Popular science is science that is designed to appeal to the general public, rather than just the initiated.Stephen Hawking is one intellectual who has benefited from writing in a way that is designed to appeal more to the masses than just to academics. See more here if you like http://vulgar.org...

Maybe a magazine would work.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 5:31:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: No offense, but it is the opposite way around. Most of what is talked about in this forum is merely pop science, that is it is either dated, or spoken with extremely exaggerated, conclusions that are not really held, or simply old, or just ridiculous within professional science. Whereas, in all due respect Stephen Hawking's, and Richard Dawkins are actual intelligent and official scientific professionals. They're just not liked because are overtly tend to oppose religion. And 95% of that hostility, is from the people who understand science the least..

They are wrong, to write off everything else as nonsense, or useless, but they are nonetheless geniuses in their own field. If they were not good at what they did, they would not be considered threats, and so not be taking serious enough to be hated.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 7:33:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 5:31:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: No offense, but it is the opposite way around. Most of what is talked about in this forum is merely pop science, that is it is either dated, or spoken with extremely exaggerated, conclusions that are not really held, or simply old, or just ridiculous within professional science. Whereas, in all due respect Stephen Hawking's, and Richard Dawkins are actual intelligent and official scientific professionals. They're just not liked because are overtly tend to oppose religion. And 95% of that hostility, is from the people who understand science the least..

They are wrong, to write off everything else as nonsense, or useless, but they are nonetheless geniuses in their own field. If they were not good at what they did, they would not be considered threats, and so not be taking serious enough to be hated.

I wasn't aware that hawking stood, metaphorically, in opposition to religion. Or, at least not in an extremely blatant manner. I'd heard there was a bit of controversy, because hawking had purported to present a model of the universe that did not require god.

Dawkins, on the other hand, seems to be disliked by theists and atheists both. But, that's because he attempted to step in the debating circut, and was found wanting in the area of philosophy. He's a brilliant man, no doubt about it. But his knowledge of philosophy has definetly been found wanting. He should have stuck to biology, where he really knows his stuff.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 8:06:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
He is very much opposed to religion, and even philosophy. He's a brain, and only a brain, who wants as much within his dominion as possible. There's terrible, terrible bias to him.

And I am not talking down his raw ability, but what he puts forward as his raw ability. And nor am I so opposed to his opposition to religion, more so his opposition to political and philosophical thought. There's just an utter coldness to him.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 11:38:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 7:33:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/22/2013 5:31:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: No offense, but it is the opposite way around. Most of what is talked about in this forum is merely pop science, that is it is either dated, or spoken with extremely exaggerated, conclusions that are not really held, or simply old, or just ridiculous within professional science. Whereas, in all due respect Stephen Hawking's, and Richard Dawkins are actual intelligent and official scientific professionals. They're just not liked because are overtly tend to oppose religion. And 95% of that hostility, is from the people who understand science the least..

They are wrong, to write off everything else as nonsense, or useless, but they are nonetheless geniuses in their own field. If they were not good at what they did, they would not be considered threats, and so not be taking serious enough to be hated.

I wasn't aware that hawking stood, metaphorically, in opposition to religion. Or, at least not in an extremely blatant manner. I'd heard there was a bit of controversy, because hawking had purported to present a model of the universe that did not require god.

He's not. AnDoctuir's hostility towards him, is due to his model which Hawking states makes God unnecessary.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 11:46:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 11:38:16 AM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 7:33:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/22/2013 5:31:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: No offense, but it is the opposite way around. Most of what is talked about in this forum is merely pop science, that is it is either dated, or spoken with extremely exaggerated, conclusions that are not really held, or simply old, or just ridiculous within professional science. Whereas, in all due respect Stephen Hawking's, and Richard Dawkins are actual intelligent and official scientific professionals. They're just not liked because are overtly tend to oppose religion. And 95% of that hostility, is from the people who understand science the least..

They are wrong, to write off everything else as nonsense, or useless, but they are nonetheless geniuses in their own field. If they were not good at what they did, they would not be considered threats, and so not be taking serious enough to be hated.

I wasn't aware that hawking stood, metaphorically, in opposition to religion. Or, at least not in an extremely blatant manner. I'd heard there was a bit of controversy, because hawking had purported to present a model of the universe that did not require god.

He's not. AnDoctuir's hostility towards him, is due to his model which Hawking states makes God unnecessary.

No actually it isn't, friend. What I have against him is what I've stated. Read his book.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 11:48:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You know what's really funny. I've recently come from a site where I'm Sirius, where that's the name I'm known by, only to meet another who has named himself after a bright star here, a student of sociology also, and an opponent of mine.

I am the brighter star, friend.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 11:49:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"We live in a rational world best understood through the exercise of reason and the tools of empiricism. I know not if everything requires a natural explanation, but I have yet to find an exception."

Pffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttt
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:03:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 11:48:15 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You know what's really funny. I've recently come from a site where I'm Sirius, where that's the name I'm known by, only to meet another who has named himself after a bright star here, a student of sociology also, and an opponent of mine.

I am the brighter star, friend.

*cue spooky music
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:05:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 11:46:09 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 11:38:16 AM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 7:33:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/22/2013 5:31:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: No offense, but it is the opposite way around. Most of what is talked about in this forum is merely pop science, that is it is either dated, or spoken with extremely exaggerated, conclusions that are not really held, or simply old, or just ridiculous within professional science. Whereas, in all due respect Stephen Hawking's, and Richard Dawkins are actual intelligent and official scientific professionals. They're just not liked because are overtly tend to oppose religion. And 95% of that hostility, is from the people who understand science the least..

They are wrong, to write off everything else as nonsense, or useless, but they are nonetheless geniuses in their own field. If they were not good at what they did, they would not be considered threats, and so not be taking serious enough to be hated.

I wasn't aware that hawking stood, metaphorically, in opposition to religion. Or, at least not in an extremely blatant manner. I'd heard there was a bit of controversy, because hawking had purported to present a model of the universe that did not require god.

He's not. AnDoctuir's hostility towards him, is due to his model which Hawking states makes God unnecessary.

No actually it isn't, friend. What I have against him is what I've stated. Read his book.

So answer this question:

Did you know who Hawking was prior to reading his book?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:07:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:05:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 11:46:09 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 11:38:16 AM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 7:33:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/22/2013 5:31:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: No offense, but it is the opposite way around. Most of what is talked about in this forum is merely pop science, that is it is either dated, or spoken with extremely exaggerated, conclusions that are not really held, or simply old, or just ridiculous within professional science. Whereas, in all due respect Stephen Hawking's, and Richard Dawkins are actual intelligent and official scientific professionals. They're just not liked because are overtly tend to oppose religion. And 95% of that hostility, is from the people who understand science the least..

They are wrong, to write off everything else as nonsense, or useless, but they are nonetheless geniuses in their own field. If they were not good at what they did, they would not be considered threats, and so not be taking serious enough to be hated.

I wasn't aware that hawking stood, metaphorically, in opposition to religion. Or, at least not in an extremely blatant manner. I'd heard there was a bit of controversy, because hawking had purported to present a model of the universe that did not require god.

He's not. AnDoctuir's hostility towards him, is due to his model which Hawking states makes God unnecessary.

No actually it isn't, friend. What I have against him is what I've stated. Read his book.

So answer this question:

Did you know who Hawking was prior to reading his book?

Uh, yes. And so your trying to build a case of bias around me falls completely to ashes, no? I was just very genuinely interested, as I still am, what with my periodically watching youtube videos about dark matter, string theory, etc. Where my appreciation for Stephen Hawking failed was in witnessing his bias.

Have you read his book?
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:15:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:07:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:05:07 PM, Polaris wrote:

So answer this question:

Did you know who Hawking was prior to reading his book?

Uh, yes.

Okay. And prior to reading his book were you aware of his statements regarding God being unnecessary to explain the universe?

Have you read his book?

I have not.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:18:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My main qualm with what was written was actually very much to do with his regard for Einstein, not religion at all, but then I do take issue there, too. He poses Einstein alongside Aristotle as somewhat of a dullard in comparison to himself as regards science, and then goes on to attack Einstein's politics, too, as though he had not berated him enough to appear intellectually superior. All in all, Stephen Hawking comes across quite the child.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:22:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And at the time of reading I was actually purporting myself as an atheist on this site, Polaris; not in earnest, though. I was well aware that people would explain away the universe by means of pure chance.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 2:04:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:15:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:07:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:05:07 PM, Polaris wrote:

So answer this question:

Did you know who Hawking was prior to reading his book?

Uh, yes.

Okay. And prior to reading his book were you aware of his statements regarding God being unnecessary to explain the universe?


Have you read his book?

I have not.

Can you answer the question please?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 2:25:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 2:04:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:15:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:07:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:05:07 PM, Polaris wrote:

So answer this question:

Did you know who Hawking was prior to reading his book?

Uh, yes.

Okay. And prior to reading his book were you aware of his statements regarding God being unnecessary to explain the universe?


Have you read his book?

I have not.

Can you answer the question please?

I don't quite remember, but I'm thinking I would have had a general idea that it would exclude God, yeah.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 2:25:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ergo my hostility is because it excluded God and not for any of the other reasons I stated? You seem quite the control freak, dude.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 2:44:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 2:25:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Ergo my hostility is because it excluded God and not for any of the other reasons I stated? You seem quite the control freak, dude.

The two are not mutually exclusive, it could be that your bias going into the book painted your perception of his treatment of Einstein.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 3:51:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 2:44:03 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:25:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Ergo my hostility is because it excluded God and not for any of the other reasons I stated? You seem quite the control freak, dude.

The two are not mutually exclusive, it could be that your bias going into the book painted your perception of his treatment of Einstein.

And you might just be a figment of my imagination.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 3:53:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 3:51:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:44:03 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:25:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Ergo my hostility is because it excluded God and not for any of the other reasons I stated? You seem quite the control freak, dude.

The two are not mutually exclusive, it could be that your bias going into the book painted your perception of his treatment of Einstein.

And you might just be a figment of my imagination.

I'll let you ruminate over which one is more likely.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 3:54:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 3:53:19 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:51:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:44:03 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:25:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Ergo my hostility is because it excluded God and not for any of the other reasons I stated? You seem quite the control freak, dude.

The two are not mutually exclusive, it could be that your bias going into the book painted your perception of his treatment of Einstein.

And you might just be a figment of my imagination.

I'll let you ruminate over which one is more likely.

I'm going to go with Descartes and assume a benevolent God.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:06:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 3:54:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:53:19 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:51:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:44:03 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:25:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Ergo my hostility is because it excluded God and not for any of the other reasons I stated? You seem quite the control freak, dude.

The two are not mutually exclusive, it could be that your bias going into the book painted your perception of his treatment of Einstein.

And you might just be a figment of my imagination.

I'll let you ruminate over which one is more likely.

I'm going to go with Descartes and assume a benevolent God.

?? We were discussing your bias, not the existence of God.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:11:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 4:06:38 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:54:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:53:19 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:51:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:44:03 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:25:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Ergo my hostility is because it excluded God and not for any of the other reasons I stated? You seem quite the control freak, dude.

The two are not mutually exclusive, it could be that your bias going into the book painted your perception of his treatment of Einstein.

And you might just be a figment of my imagination.

I'll let you ruminate over which one is more likely.

I'm going to go with Descartes and assume a benevolent God.

?? We were discussing your bias, not the existence of God.

My assumption of a benevolent God was with regard to your existence as absolute. As regards the former discussion, I'm well aware of my position, as I have been all this time. I'm rather politically motivated and Einstein's are ideas which ring very much true with me. There was born my hostility. I call a spade a spade, my friend, unlike you.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:16:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually that assumption of absolutism is rather fail thinking about it, but I can just go and throw all practicality to the wind now, can I?
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:34:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 4:11:15 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 4:06:38 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:54:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:53:19 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:51:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:44:03 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:25:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Ergo my hostility is because it excluded God and not for any of the other reasons I stated? You seem quite the control freak, dude.

The two are not mutually exclusive, it could be that your bias going into the book painted your perception of his treatment of Einstein.

And you might just be a figment of my imagination.

I'll let you ruminate over which one is more likely.

I'm going to go with Descartes and assume a benevolent God.

?? We were discussing your bias, not the existence of God.

My assumption of a benevolent God was with regard to your existence as absolute.

What? I feel like you're skipping a few steps somewhere.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:37:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 4:34:33 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 4:11:15 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 4:06:38 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:54:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:53:19 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 3:51:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:44:03 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/22/2013 2:25:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Ergo my hostility is because it excluded God and not for any of the other reasons I stated? You seem quite the control freak, dude.

The two are not mutually exclusive, it could be that your bias going into the book painted your perception of his treatment of Einstein.

And you might just be a figment of my imagination.

I'll let you ruminate over which one is more likely.

I'm going to go with Descartes and assume a benevolent God.

?? We were discussing your bias, not the existence of God.

My assumption of a benevolent God was with regard to your existence as absolute.

What? I feel like you're skipping a few steps somewhere.

I was just quoting Descartes from a video you were posted recently in response to your looking for an answer to the regress problem.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:07:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 4:37:17 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I was just quoting Descartes from a video you were posted recently in response to your looking for an answer to the regress problem.

That's nice. I don't see how that addresses your apparent bias.