Re: Scientists use maths to predict 'the end of religion' - Repost
Mentifex
> [...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains-what-microprocessors-are-and-do-from/
>
>
> > "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
> > from way back in 1976" [...]
Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
Mentifex
--
http://mind.sourceforge.net/theology.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595654371/
http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/AiHasBeenSolved
http://groups.google.com/group/net.ai/msg/3a4429a7b26d40ef/
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote:
>> [...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains-what-microprocessors-are-and-do-from/
>>
>>
>> > "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
>> > from way back in 1976" [...]
>
> Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
> artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
Indeed, it's well known that a little science drives away from God,
but more science drives closer to Him.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
Rod Speed
> Mentifex <ment...@myuw.net> wrote
>> Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote
>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote
>>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains-what-microprocessors-are-and-do-from/
>>>> "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do... from way back in 1976" [...]
>> Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
>> artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
> Indeed, it's well known that a little science drives away from God,
> but more science drives closer to Him.
Thats completely silly.
Jimmy John
<c05289ca-8bb3-421a...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Mentifex <ment...@myuw.net> wrote:
> Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
> artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
Artificial Intelligence is created, not creator.
Jimmy John
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <p...@informatimago.com> wrote:
> Mentifex <ment...@myuw.net> writes:
>
> > On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote:
> >> [...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains-what-microproce
> >> ssors-are-and-do-from/
> >>
> >>
> >> > "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
> >> > from way back in 1976" [...]
> >
> > Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
> > artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
Then why are so many of the world's top scientists nonbelievers?
"A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed
in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population
described themselves as believers."
according to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-li
kely-to-believe-in-God.html
Dr. HotSalt
> On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote:
>
> > [...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
> > > from way back in 1976" [...]
>
> Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
> artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
I don't want to be a God Of The Machine.
Dr. Hot"...any pantheon that will accept me..."Salt
Les Cargill
> In article<b4f1a08e-62c0-4328...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> may think otherwise.
>
> -- mrr
"Hey machine. See that off switch? Yeah, you know what that means."
--
Les Cargill
Charlie Gibbs
(Les Cargill) writes:
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <b4f1a08e-62c0-4328...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Dr. HotSalt<alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 3:14 pm, Mentifex<menti...@myuw.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, Bill Marcum<b...@lat.localnet> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains-what-micr...
>>>>
>>>>>> "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
>>>>>> from way back in 1976" [...]
>>>>
>>>> Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
>>>> artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
>>>
>>> I don't want to be a God Of The Machine.
>>
>> We may think we are the gods of the machines. But the machines
>> may think otherwise.
>
> "Hey machine. See that off switch? Yeah, you know what that means."
A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down
and fused the switch shut.
-- Fredric Brown, "Answer"
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Dave Garland
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>> We may think we are the gods of the machines. But the machines
>> may think otherwise.
>>
>> -- mrr
>
>
> "Hey machine. See that off switch? Yeah, you know what that means."
>
In these days of "soft" switches, UPSs, and "wake on LAN", what does
that mean?
Your window of opportunity is before the building automation is
developed to the degree that the computer controls the lights and door
locks. Some places, one of them does that already.
"I'm sorry, Les, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Dave
Rod Speed
> Les Cargill wrote
>> Morten Reistad wrote
>>> We may think we are the gods of the machines.
>>> But the machines may think otherwise.
>> "Hey machine. See that off switch? Yeah, you know what that means."
> In these days of "soft" switches, UPSs, and "wake on LAN", what does that mean?
> Your window of opportunity is before the building automation is
> developed to the degree that the computer controls the lights
> and door locks. Some places, one of them does that already.
> "I'm sorry, Les, I'm afraid I can't do that."
You can still pull the plug out of the wall.
Les Cargill
> On 3/27/2011 12:42 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>
>>> We may think we are the gods of the machines. But the machines
>>> may think otherwise.
>>>
>>> -- mrr
>>
>>
>> "Hey machine. See that off switch? Yeah, you know what that means."
>>
>
> In these days of "soft" switches, UPSs, and "wake on LAN", what does
> that mean?
>
It means an OFF SWITCH. A break in the wire between the power
source and the device, bridged only by a switch.
> Your window of opportunity is before the building automation is
> developed to the degree that the computer controls the lights and door
> locks. Some places, one of them does that already.
>
Those are ludicrous.
> "I'm sorry, Les, I'm afraid I can't do that."
>
> Dave
In that case .... "say hello to my leeetle fren'...." :)
--
Les Cargill
Mentifex
I'm sorry, Dave, your wit may not go unremarked.
(It's like William Gibson writing in Wired Magazine
about "so-called cyberspace" :-)
Arthur
--
http://search.ebay.com/ai4u
http://cyborg.blogspot.com/2011/01/aiapp.html
http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/AiHasBeenSolved
http://groups.google.com/group/net.ai/msg/3a4429a7b26d40ef/
Morten Reistad
Rod Speed
It doesnt get any say on that.
And we can alway pull the plug on some insolent robot as well.
Dave Garland
> Morten Reistad wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> You can still pull the plug out of the wall.
>
>> "I am sorry Rod, I cannot let you do that."
>
> It doesnt get any say on that.
>
> And we can alway pull the plug on some insolent robot as well.
>
Right now, you can, if it's your desk computer. But if it's the LAN
server, only if you have a key to the server room. If it's in a
cloud, how do you pull the cord in a hurry on Amazon's hosting? Or
has redundant power. It would certainly be possible to build a system
that wouldn't let you, you think the military's killer bots are going
to have a big "on/off" switch on the side? Think military, think high
reliability. The insolent robot is running on batteries, it don't
need no steenkin' plug.
I'm not terribly worried about it. Too many immediate other things
with higher probability.
Dave
Rod Speed
>>>>> Les Cargill wrote
>>>>>> Morten Reistad wrote
>>>>>>> We may think we are the gods of the machines.
>>>>>>> But the machines may think otherwise.
>>>>>> "Hey machine. See that off switch? Yeah, you know what that means."
>>>>> In these days of "soft" switches, UPSs, and "wake on LAN", what does that mean?
>>>>> Your window of opportunity is before the building automation is
>>>>> developed to the degree that the computer controls the lights
>>>>> and door locks. Some places, one of them does that already.
>>>>> "I'm sorry, Les, I'm afraid I can't do that."
>>>> You can still pull the plug out of the wall.
>>> "I am sorry Rod, I cannot let you do that."
>> It doesnt get any say on that.
>> And we can alway pull the plug on some insolent robot as well.
> Right now, you can, if it's your desk computer.
There will always have to be some reset/power down
mechanism even when its not your desk computer.
> But if it's the LAN server, only if you have a key to the server room.
Its more complicated than that with the power to it.
> If it's in a cloud, how do you pull the cord in a hurry on Amazon's hosting?
So dont put in where you cant pull the plug on it.
> Or has redundant power.
There will always have to be some reset mechanism,
just incase some major problem is found.
> It would certainly be possible to build a system that wouldn't let you,
Yes, but no one would actually be stupid enough to build one like that deliberately and
even with redundant power, that has to run out eventually if you chop off the mains.
> you think the military's killer bots are going
> to have a big "on/off" switch on the side?
No, but there will usually be some override mechanism for use
in case it goes wild and started to destroy the Pentagon etc.
> Think military, think high reliability.
No reason it would have to be designed like that.
In fact only a fool would do that if that isnt required by the mission.
> The insolent robot is running on batteries, it don't need no steenkin' plug.
Then I'll use my handy RPG that I keep handy for just such an eventuality.
> I'm not terribly worried about it.
Me neither because hardly anyone will design their system like that.
Those that do get what they deserve if they dont have an axe/rpg handy.
> Too many immediate other things with higher probability.
Particularly when its designed properly in the first place with an
obvious kill/reset switch in case some wart shows up in the code.
Anyone who designs a powerful system without one deserves whatever they get.
Curt Welch
Except when it pulls the plug on you first.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Morten Reistad wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Dave Garland wrote
>>>>> Les Cargill wrote
>>>>>> Morten Reistad wrote
>>>>>>> We may think we are the gods of the machines.
>>>>>>> But the machines may think otherwise.
>>>>>> "Hey machine. See that off switch? Yeah, you know what that means."
>>>>> In these days of "soft" switches, UPSs, and "wake on LAN",
>>>>> what does that mean?
>>>>> Your window of opportunity is before the building automation is
>>>>> developed to the degree that the computer controls the lights
>>>>> and door locks. Some places, one of them does that already.
>>>>> "I'm sorry, Les, I'm afraid I can't do that."
>>>> You can still pull the plug out of the wall.
>>> "I am sorry Rod, I cannot let you do that."
>> It doesnt get any say on that.
>> And we can alway pull the plug on some insolent robot as well.
> Except when it pulls the plug on you first.
I dont have a plug. It does.
Curt Welch
No worry, it will gladly attached a power cord around your neck so you can
have a plug as well!
Rod Speed
It wont get a chance.
Kevan Smith
> "I'm sorry, Les, I'm afraid I can't do that."
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!
--
K. Nessman
Don Stockbauer
wrote:
> Mentifex <menti...@myuw.net> writes:
> > On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote:
> >> [...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> > "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
> >> > from way back in 1976" [...]
>
> > Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
> > artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
>
> Indeed, it's well known that a little science drives away from God,
> but more science drives closer to Him.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
> A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
God has gender??????
Don Stockbauer
Somewhere it's got lost that this "machines hate humans " scenario is
science fiction, while in the real world machines and humans are
forming a beneficent synergism.
Han de Bruijn
> In article <87mxkhcu32....@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com>,
>
> > > On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote:
> > >> [...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > >> ssors-are-and-do-from/
>
> > >> > "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
> > >> > from way back in 1976" [...]
>
> > > Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
> > > artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
>
> Then why are so many of the world's top scientists nonbelievers?
And why are so many of the world's top scientists believers?
> "A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed
> in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population
> described themselves as believers."
> according to
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-les...
> kely-to-believe-in-God.html
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
>>> Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote
>>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote
>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains-what-micr...
>>>>> "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
>>>>> from way back in 1976" [...]
>>> Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
>>> artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
>> Indeed, it's well known that a little science drives away
>> from God, but more science drives closer to Him.
> God has gender??????
Must have to fuck over the unbelievers.
Jimmy John
<fd2c9936-eb6b-4485...@k30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 7:22 am, Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote:
> > In article <87mxkhcu32....@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com>,
> > "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <p...@informatimago.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Mentifex <menti...@myuw.net> writes:
> >
> > > > On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote:
> > > >> [...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains-what-micr...
> > > >> ssors-are-and-do-from/
> >
> > > >> > "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
> > > >> > from way back in 1976" [...]
> >
> > > > Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
> > > > artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
> >
> > Then why are so many of the world's top scientists nonbelievers?
>
> And why are so many of the world's top scientists believers?
3.3%, or anything close, hardly constitutes "so many".
Rod Speed
> Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote>>>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote
>>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains-what-micr...
>>>>>> "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
>>>>>> from way back in 1976" [...]
>>>> Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
>>>> artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
>> Then why are so many of the world's top scientists nonbelievers?
> And why are so many of the world's top scientists believers?
Those are the fools that need a crutch for their pathetically inadequate 'minds'
Han de Bruijn
> In article
> Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 7:22 am, Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote:
> > > In article <87mxkhcu32....@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com>,
> > > "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <p...@informatimago.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Mentifex <menti...@myuw.net> writes:
>
> > > > > On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote:
> > > > >> [...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains-what-micr...
> > > > >> ssors-are-and-do-from/
>
> > > > >> > "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and do...
> > > > >> > from way back in 1976" [...]
>
> > > > > Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
> > > > > artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
>
> > > Then why are so many of the world's top scientists nonbelievers?
>
> > And why are so many of the world's top scientists believers?
>
> 3.3%, or anything close, hardly constitutes "so many".
Text not found.
> > > "A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed
> > > in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population
> > > described themselves as believers."
> > > according to
>
> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-les...
> > > kely-to-believe-in-God.html
Either give a decent and complete reference or be quiet.
Han de Bruijn
Brian Chandler
> > > > "A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed
> > > > in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population
> > > > described themselves as believers."
> > > > according to
> >
> > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-les...
> > > > kely-to-believe-in-God.html
Han de Bruijn wrote:
> On Mar 28, 10:25 am, Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote:
> > 3.3%, or anything close, hardly constitutes "so many".
>
> Text not found.
>
> Either give a decent and complete reference or be quiet.
You are perhaps using google, whose link intercept mechanism is not
only obtrusive, but broken anyway. It doesn't take very much
intelligence to reconstruct it: paste the following into your address
bar (preceded by http:// if required by your browser)
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html
(I hope this works: if not I'll try again.)
Brian Chandler
Brian Chandler
the more moronic it is.
Brian Chandler wrote:
> Buried in a chain of quotes:
> > > > > "A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed
> > > > > in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population
> > > > > described themselves as believers."
> > > > > according to
> > >
> > > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-les...
> > > > > kely-to-believe-in-God.html
>
>
> Han de Bruijn wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 10:25 am, Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote:
> > > 3.3%, or anything close, hardly constitutes "so many".
> >
> > Text not found.
> >
> > Either give a decent and complete reference or be quiet.
>
> You are perhaps using google, whose link intercept mechanism is not
> only obtrusive, but broken anyway. It doesn't take very much
> intelligence to reconstruct it: paste the following into your address
> bar (preceded by http:// if required by your browser)
>
>
OK try:
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-
believe-in-God.html
If this still doesn't work, you'll have to paste the following
fragments into your address bar, joined together with no spaces:
www
.telegraph
.co
.uk
/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-
God.html
Or go to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/
and paste this on the end:
2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html
Brian Chandler
Han de Bruijn
wrote:
Thanks Brian, that has worked.
First one has to accept that people like Professor Richard Lynn (is he
a Royal Society fellow?) are "intelligent people". Having taken notice
of his utterings, I dare to doubt it.
Second. The following, in my not so humble opinion, is indeed the more
intelligent and correct statement: <quote>
Dr David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London
Metropolitan University, said: "It is very difficult to conduct true
experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and
religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains
that higher levels of intelligence are associated with [ ! ] a greater
ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly
felt institutions." </quote> =================================
=================
Han de Bruijn
Curt Welch
That of course is the important part. If we don't give them a chance, then
they can't harm us. However, there are some that speculate that the
intelligent machines will be so useful to us, that we won't be able to say
no, in terms of giving them power over us. It won't make any difference
what you or I think we should do if the majority of society has become
addicted to letting the machines do all the work.
Rod Speed
Yep.
> If we don't give them a chance, then they can't harm us.
And anyone with even half a clue will include a reset mechanism so
we can just turn it off when a serious flaw in the code turns up etc.
Anyone who doesnt do that deserves everything they get.
> However, there are some that speculate that the intelligent
> machines will be so useful to us, that we won't be able to
> say no, in terms of giving them power over us.
And anyone with even half a clue will include a reset mechanism so
we can just turn it off when a serious flaw in the code turns up etc.
Anyone who doesnt do that deserves everything they get.
> It won't make any difference what you or I think we should do if the majority
> of society has become addicted to letting the machines do all the work.
Its not 'all that work' that matters, its the reset mechanism thats included.
Even very critical stuff like aircraft blind landing systems ALWAYS
have some override mechanism so the individual monitoring its
performance can pull the plug if the shit is about it hit the fan etc.
Rod Speed
> Curt Welch <cu...@kcwc.com> wrote
>> That of course is the important part. If we don't give them a
>> chance, then they can't harm us. However, there are some
>> that speculate that the intelligent machines will be so useful
>> to us, that we won't be able to say no, in terms of giving them
>> power over us. It won't make any difference what you or
>> I think we should do if the majority of society has become
>> addicted to letting the machines do all the work.
> s/machines/slaves/ and you have Rome's predicament, 2k years ago.
Much easier to include a reset mechanism with a machine.
Peter Flass
Has anyone ever invented anything that didn't get used?
Jimmy John
<8cbb220c-5214-422a...@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is only one out of many, all of which note that scientific eminence
and belief in a god are strongly and clearly negatively correlated.
See also, among many others,
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
Jimmy John
<72841a42-33d6-4649...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> wrote:
It may also indicate that higher levels of intelligence are less likely
to accept claims unsupported by reliable forms of evidence.
Virgil
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
The U.S. Patent office has issued thousands, if not millions, of patents
for inventions that "didn't get used".
--
Dave Garland
> And anyone with even half a clue will include a reset mechanism so
> we can just turn it off when a serious flaw in the code turns up etc.
>
> Anyone who doesnt do that deserves everything they get.
What you're missing is, it's not just _them_ that will get it.
Consider a similar example. Who'd be dumb (or cheap) enough to hook a
system that's critical to the infrastructure up to a publicly
accessible network, where every Bulgarian teenager can bounce packets
off of it? What could possibly go wrong? And when it does, you don't
think you'll be affected too?
Dave
Rod Speed
Yep, hordes of stuff in the patents.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yep.
>> And anyone with even half a clue will include a reset mechanism so
>> we can just turn it off when a serious flaw in the code turns up etc.
>> Anyone who doesnt do that deserves everything they get.
> What you're missing is, it's not just _them_ that will get it.
Nope, not missing anything in that regard.
> Consider a similar example.
Its nothing even remotely like similar.
> Who'd be dumb (or cheap) enough to hook a system that's
> critical to the infrastructure up to a publicly accessible network,
> where every Bulgarian teenager can bounce packets off of it?
> What could possibly go wrong?
There is still a reset switch and the capacity to pull the plug on it if thats required.
> And when it does, you don't think you'll be affected too?
I wasnt affected at all.
Matthew L Martin
One example: The nuclear hand grenade.
Matthew
--
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people". Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936):
Peter Flass
Some suicide bomber would be glad to use it if he had it.
Han de Bruijn
> In article
>
> > Han de Bruijn
>
> That is only one out of many, all of which note that scientific eminence
> and belief in a god are strongly and clearly negatively correlated.
>
> See also, among many others,
>
> http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
>
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
>
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Someone with a bias always finds support for his bias.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
Yep, thats always been obvious with your shit.
pete
> In article <b4f1a08e-62c0-4328...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Dr. HotSalt <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 26, 3:14 pm, Mentifex <menti...@myuw.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains-what-micr...
>>>
>>>>>from way back in 1976" [...]
>>>
>>>Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
>>>artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
>>
>
>
> We may think we are the gods of the machines. But the machines
> may think otherwise.
http://www.mahalo.com/frankenstein-quotes/
You are my creator, but I am your master—obey!" -The Monster, Ch. 20
--
pete
Brian Chandler
> On Mar 28, 10:04 pm, Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8cbb220c-5214-422a-97a4-7761d977d...@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 28, 10:25 am, Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <fd2c9936-eb6b-4485-835c-ae4401164...@k30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Mar 27, 7:22 am, Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote:
> > > > > > "A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent
> > > > > > believed
> > > > > > in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population
> > > > > > described themselves as believers."
> > > > > > according to
> >
> > > > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-les...
> > That is only one out of many, all of which note that scientific eminence
> > and belief in a god are strongly and clearly negatively correlated.
> > http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
> >
> > http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
> >
> > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
>
> Someone with a bias always finds support for his bias.
Any chance of explaining what this is supposed to mean? That the four
articles all suggesting a negative correlation have been chosen in a
biased way, and in fact there are lots of other surveys suggesting the
contrary? Or that the surveys were (all?) carried out in a biased way?
Or what?
Brian Chandler
Curt Welch
> On Mar 28, 10:04=A0pm, Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8cbb220c-5214-422a-97a4-7761d977d...@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 28, 10:25=A0am, Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <fd2c9936-eb6b-4485-835c-ae4401164...@k30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > > > > On Mar 27, 7:22 am, Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <87mxkhcu32....@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com>,
> > > > > > "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <p...@informatimago.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Mentifex <menti...@myuw.net> writes:
> >
> > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, Bill Marcum <b...@lat.localnet> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> [...] On 2011-03-25, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >>http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/william-shatner-explains
> hat-mic
> > > > > > > >>r...
> > > > > > > >> ssors-are-and-do-from/
> >
> > > > > > > >> > "William Shatner explains what microprocessors are and
> ..
> > > > > > > >> > from way back in 1976" [...]
> >
> > > > > > > > Mathematics may deprecate religion, but
> > > > > > > > artificial intelligence reinstates theology.
> >
> > > > > > Then why are so many of the world's top scientists
> > > > > > nonbelievers?
> >
> > > > > And why are so many of the world's top scientists believers?
> >
> > > > 3.3%, or anything close, hardly constitutes "so many".
> >
> > > Text not found.
> >
> > > > > > "A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent
> > > > > > believed
> > > > > > in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK
> n
> > > > > > described themselves as believers."
> > > > > > according to
> >
> > > > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-peopl
> les...
> >
> > > Either give a decent and complete reference or be quiet.
> >
> > > Han de Bruijn
> >
> > That is only one out of many, all of which note that scientific
> > eminence and belief in a god are strongly and clearly negatively
> > correlated.
> >
> > See also, among many others,
> >
> > http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
> >
> > http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
> >
> > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
>
> Someone with a bias always finds support for his bias.
What is your bias?
> Han de Bruijn
Jimmy John
<0ddbaaf3-3885-487d...@a12g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Where do you go to find support for yours?
Don Stockbauer
> In article
Biases are fine. They all tend to average out when you consider
everybody.
Han de Bruijn
wrote:
Wouldn't been surprised if it's all of these.
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
That I have only _one_ boss, while some of you have many.
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> In article
Anywhere.
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
Here is another survey:
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>> "A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent
>>>>>>>> believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK
>>>>>>>> population described themselves as believers."
>>>>>>>> according to
>>>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-les...
>> [mended URL in previous post]
>>>> That is only one out of many, all of which note that scientific
>>>> eminence and belief in a god are strongly and clearly negatively
>>>> correlated. http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
>>>> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
>>>> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
>>> Someone with a bias always finds support for his bias.
>> Any chance of explaining what this is supposed to mean? That the four
>> articles all suggesting a negative correlation have been chosen in a
>> biased way, and in fact there are lots of other surveys suggesting
>> the contrary? Or that the surveys were (all?) carried out in a
>> biased way? Or what?
> Here is another survey:
> http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
Corse there isnt even a shred of bias involved there, eh ?
Han de Bruijn
> Han de Bruijn wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Brian Chandler <imaginator...@despammed.com> wrote
> >> Han de Bruijn wrote
> >>> Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote
> >>>> Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>> Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote
> >>>>>> Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> Jimmy John <Ji...@john.sci> wrote
> >>>>>>>> "A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent
> >>>>>>>> believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK
> >>>>>>>> population described themselves as believers."
> >>>>>>>> according to
> >>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-les...
> >> [mended URL in previous post]
> >>>> That is only one out of many, all of which note that scientific
> >>>> eminence and belief in a god are strongly and clearly negatively
> >>>>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
> >>>>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
> >>> Someone with a bias always finds support for his bias.
> >> Any chance of explaining what this is supposed to mean? That the four
> >> articles all suggesting a negative correlation have been chosen in a
> >> biased way, and in fact there are lots of other surveys suggesting
> >> the contrary? Or that the surveys were (all?) carried out in a
> >> biased way? Or what?
> > Here is another survey:
> >http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
>
> Corse there isnt even a shred of bias involved there, eh ?
Did I deny anything?
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> In article
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
Han de Bruijn
Brian Chandler
Indeed, another survey, with a basically similar result -- that
scientists on average are less religious than non-scientists. Of
course the figures in this survey are somewhat different, because this
survey looks only at America, birthplace of the supermarket (if that's
relevant!), and America is wildly off the graph for the rest of the
world. So arguably choosing a US survey is a little "biased" in global
terms.
But what on earth is your point? Do you have any rational basis for
disputing the (overall, averaged out) results of all four surveys?
Incidentally, (and quite aside from the curent issue) the US survey
you pointed to is an excellent demonstration of the Pie-chart as an
Instrument of Confusion. There's an interesting "anti-piechart"
website somewhere I recall visiting...
Brian Chandler
Rod Speed
Pity about the obvious bias in their claim about the American National
Academy of Sciences result compared with the statement of the same poll in
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html
Han de Bruijn
Precisely. And there are _no_ such polls for many other countries, let
it be a truly world wide poll, so what's the relevance? UK and US do
not make up the world, you know. Still apart from quite a lot of other
obvious questions. I know atheists who read the bible. And people who
become really mad when I say that Black Holes do not exist. Isn't the
belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
> But what on earth is your point? Do you have any rational basis for
> disputing the (overall, averaged out) results of all four surveys?
My point is that there is no stuff for a _serious_ debate, actually.
> Incidentally, (and quite aside from the curent issue) the US survey
> you pointed to is an excellent demonstration of the Pie-chart as an
> Instrument of Confusion. There's an interesting "anti-piechart"
> website somewhere I recall visiting...
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Brian Chandler <imaginator...@despammed.com> wrote
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>> Brian Chandler <imaginator...@despammed.com> wrote
>>>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-les...
>>>>>> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
>>>>>> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
>>> Here is another survey:
>>> http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
Yes, because most other countrys dont even have institutions like that.
> let it be a truly world wide poll,
Not even possible with those institutions mentioned, most of the world doesnt even have them.
> so what's the relevance? UK and US do not make up the world, you know.
No one ever said they do. The numbers are interesting tho.
> Still apart from quite a lot of other obvious questions.
Nope, just you desperately trying to bullshit away those numbers.
> I know atheists who read the bible.
I do myself, to see what ludicrous crap fools like you are stupid enough to believe.
> And people who become really mad when I say that Black Holes do not exist.
> Isn't the belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
Nope. Those are based on EVIDENCE.
Religion isnt.
>> But what on earth is your point? Do you have any rational basis
>> for disputing the (overall, averaged out) results of all four surveys?
> My point is that there is no stuff for a _serious_ debate, actually.
Thats a lie.
Peter Flass
> UK and US do
> not make up the world, you know.
There are other places that matter? OK, maybe Australia and Canada...
Han de Bruijn
If there are no other places that matter, then results are even more
irrelevant, discriminating and embarrassing.
Han de Bruijn
des...@verizon.net
> Isn't the
> belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
Well, now you want to treat us to even more ignorance:
Stars have been observed orbiting something we can't see in our own
Milky Way. We can see the stars, we can't see the object they orbit and
the stars are moving really fast. Black holes were predicted there and
the orbiting stars are evidence. There is other evidence.
Big Bangs are an attempt to explain the observed expansion of
the universe. Whether there was a time when the universe wasn't
expanding I don't claim to know, but there's an observation and
a theory.
Evolution? Oh how tiresome. Get an education instead of
parading around your ignorance.
Han de Bruijn
> Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Isn't the
> > belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
>
> Well, now you want to treat us to even more ignorance:
>
> Stars have been observed orbiting something we can't see in our own
> Milky Way. We can see the stars, we can't see the object they orbit and
> the stars are moving really fast. Black holes were predicted there and
> the orbiting stars are evidence. There is other evidence.
There's a massive difference between massive objects and black holes.
Do _you_ know from the top of your head what the maximum size would
be of a black hole where the earth fits in? Do you know what the size
would be of the smallest _stable_ body where the earth fits in? If you
cannot answer these fairly simple questions, then I consider _you_ as
ignorant, for the reason that I have _no_ trouble to answer them.
> Big Bangs are an attempt to explain the observed expansion of
> the universe. Whether there was a time when the universe wasn't
> expanding I don't claim to know, but there's an observation and
> a theory.
There are many ways to explain that observation. And a theory is only
a theory. BTW, the only thing observed is a red shift, not expansion.
> Evolution? Oh how tiresome. Get an education instead of
> parading around your ignorance.
There are even more observations that are _not_ in concordance with
Evolution theory. Talking about having a bias and a religion ..
Han de Bruijn
Dr. HotSalt
The data do not claim to be global. Science uses the phrase
"existing data" for a reason.
> Isn't the
> belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
No.
The claims of religions *by definition* are not testable. They exist
because somebody Said So.
The claims of scientific theories are *by definition* testable; it's
a feature built into the scientific method. They are tested simply by
comparing them against observables. If the observables agree with the
claims (not the other way around, which is why the phrase "ad hoc"
exists) the theory is *supported*, not "proved". If the observables do
not, the theory is *falsified* (determined not to be true).
There is no built-in falsification procedure for religions.
With religion, you either believe or don't.
With science, belief is irrelevant; either the available evidence
agrees or not.
So no, black holes, big bangs, and evolution are not religious
themes.
> > But what on earth is your point? Do you have any rational basis for
> > disputing the (overall, averaged out) results of all four surveys?
>
> My point is that there is no stuff for a _serious_ debate, actually.
You appear to limit "serious debate" to "debates about globally
inclusive data sets", which is silly when there's none available.
"Serious debate" is still quite possible, though limited to the
available data. If you insist on rejecting it as incomplete, you are
thus restricted to holding a belief about such a hypothetical complete
data set, if you so choose.
For what specific reason(s) do you do you consider the available
data to be not (even roughly) representative of a complete data set?
Mark L. Fergerson
Han de Bruijn
> On Mar 31, 3:15 pm, des...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > Isn't the
> > > belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
>
> > Well, now you want to treat us to even more ignorance:
>
> > Stars have been observed orbiting something we can't see in our own
> > Milky Way. We can see the stars, we can't see the object they orbit and
> > the stars are moving really fast. Black holes were predicted there and
> > the orbiting stars are evidence. There is other evidence.
>
> There's a massive difference between massive objects and black holes.
>
> Do _you_ know from the top of your head what the maximum size would
> be of a black hole where the earth fits in? Do you know what the size
> would be of the smallest _stable_ body where the earth fits in? If you
> cannot answer these fairly simple questions, then I consider _you_ as
> ignorant, for the reason that I have _no_ trouble to answer them.
Minor nitpicking: where the _mass of_ the earth fits in.
> > Big Bangs are an attempt to explain the observed expansion of
> > the universe. Whether there was a time when the universe wasn't
> > expanding I don't claim to know, but there's an observation and
> > a theory.
>
> There are many ways to explain that observation. And a theory is only
> a theory. BTW, the only thing observed is a red shift, not expansion.
>
> > Evolution? Oh how tiresome. Get an education instead of
> > parading around your ignorance.
>
> There are even more observations that are _not_ in concordance with
> Evolution theory. Talking about having a bias and a religion ..
Look, I haven't an "scientific" explanation either, in case there is
evidence for the absence of an evolution. But I'd rather be ignorant
than devise a system of lies to cover up that evidence.
Han de Bruijn
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Han de Bruijn wrote
> > And people who become really mad when I say that Black Holes do not
> > exist. Isn't the belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution
> > itself a religion?
>
> Nope. Those are based on EVIDENCE.
Only indirectly (very indirectly at that) nobody as ever observed a
big bang or a black hole, evolution is better but still AFAIK nobody has
ever observed a new species appearing. These things are *theories* (or in
the case of black holes conse) which have so far not been falsified by
observations.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
des...@verizon.net wrote:
> Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Isn't the
> > belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
>
> Well, now you want to treat us to even more ignorance:
>
> Stars have been observed orbiting something we can't see in our own
> Milky Way. We can see the stars, we can't see the object they orbit and
> the stars are moving really fast. Black holes were predicted there and
> the orbiting stars are evidence.
Trouble is that this observation cannot distinguish a neutron star
(or other very dense stellar mass) from a black hole.
> There is other evidence.
Nothing very direct - personally I'm still struggling occasionally
with a worry that it seems to me that forming a black hole should take
forever (as timed by a distant observer) due to gravitational time
dilation just as it takes forever to fall into one (as timed by a distant
observer).
> Big Bangs are an attempt to explain the observed expansion of
> the universe.
Strictly speaking expansion of the universe hasn't been observed,
what has been observed is an apparent red shift in the light from distant
objects which gets more extreme the more distant the object.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
"Dr. HotSalt" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With science, belief is irrelevant; either the available evidence
> agrees or not.
Not so! You have to believe that the universe is self consistent. A
universe run directly by a deity has no requirement to be self consistent,
a universe that is not self consistent cannot be successfully analysed
using the scientific method.
Charlie Gibbs
ste...@eircom.net (Ahem A Rivet's Shot) writes:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:17:01 +1100
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>
>>> And people who become really mad when I say that Black Holes do not
>>> exist. Isn't the belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution
>>> itself a religion?
>>
>> Nope. Those are based on EVIDENCE.
>
> Only indirectly (very indirectly at that) nobody as ever
> observed a big bang or a black hole, evolution is better but still
> AFAIK nobody has ever observed a new species appearing. These things
> are *theories* (or in the case of black holes conse) which have so far
> not been falsified by observations.
Actually, I think we're pretty close when it comes to new species.
I seem to recall reading recently about a lake that used to be open
to the ocean but later got closed off. In this lake are fish which
closely resemble the sticklebacks that live in the ocean nearby,
but which have grown sufficiently different during their isolation
to qualify as a new species.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
des...@verizon.net
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:15:27 -0400
> des...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Isn't the
>> > belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
>>
>> Well, now you want to treat us to even more ignorance:
>>
>> Stars have been observed orbiting something we can't see in our own
>> Milky Way. We can see the stars, we can't see the object they orbit and
>> the stars are moving really fast. Black holes were predicted there and
>> the orbiting stars are evidence.
>
> Trouble is that this observation cannot distinguish a neutron star
> (or other very dense stellar mass) from a black hole.
No, no trouble there at all.
A neutron star is observable.
>> There is other evidence.
>
> Nothing very direct - personally I'm still struggling occasionally
> with a worry that it seems to me that forming a black hole should take
> forever (as timed by a distant observer) due to gravitational time
> dilation just as it takes forever to fall into one (as timed by a distant
> observer).
Nothing very direct? How about the predicted curvature of space
confirmed by experiment around 100 years ago and since verified over and
over again. Do you have a theory that explains that this curvature can
only go so far and stops before it curves in on itself. I've never
heard one proposed. So either you doubt the curvature of space by
gravity or black holes exist.
Unless you're going to trot out some actual science, this is just an
attempt to create a universe devoid of things that are hard to
understand. Beats me why some people want to do that though.
Your struggling with time comes from failing to understand that time
is relative.
>> Big Bangs are an attempt to explain the observed expansion of
>> the universe.
>
> Strictly speaking expansion of the universe hasn't been observed,
> what has been observed is an apparent red shift in the light from distant
> objects which gets more extreme the more distant the object.
Wrong.
Hint: Some stellar phenomena have characteristic brightness. These
phenomena can be observed in distant galaxies and the brightness
can be correlated with the red shift.
Curt Welch
> Precisely. And there are _no_ such polls for many other countries, let
> it be a truly world wide poll, so what's the relevance? UK and US do
> not make up the world, you know. Still apart from quite a lot of other
> obvious questions. I know atheists who read the bible. And people who
> become really mad when I say that Black Holes do not exist. Isn't the
> belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
Of course. But generally, we don't define religion that way.
Science is founded on the idea that our theories are supported by objective
evidence and that they be falsifiable. Religion did not require such
constants on ideas and the result is that most religions are built around
core beliefs that have no objective evidence and often are not falsifiable.
But other than that, the social systems that develops from these principles
are much the same. Both have hoards of followers that trust in the
socially acceptable "experts" of the field. Both have trusted followers
that argue for the "good" of the system even if they don't fully understand
the system they are a part of.
If we use the word "religion" to label the social system, and not about the
core beliefs, then atheism and science are both religions.
> > But what on earth is your point? Do you have any rational basis for
> > disputing the (overall, averaged out) =A0results of all four surveys?
>
> My point is that there is no stuff for a _serious_ debate, actually.
Sure there is always plenty of stuff to have a serious debate about.
There is plenty of objective evidence to show the correlation between IQ
and preference for being part of the "science" hoard vs the "religious"
hoard. At least in some large parts of the world.
The people who post the statistics however normally have a rather obvious
hidden agenda. They want to try and show a belief in science is "better".
They want to suggest their non-religions view makes them a "better" person.
And that's not so clear because "better" is so hard to actually nail down.
I'm an atheist for sure. I know there is no god. There is only the
universe. But this also means I don't participate in local church events.
And these events form an important purpose to help bind our society
together and encourage people to help one another. Are these things bad?
Of course not. Am I a "better" person because I don't join in with them
and help them help each other? Kinda hard to argue I am better for not
helping in that way.
Even if some of the key founding beliefs of most religions are just myths,
the end result of what most religions are all about, is pure good. They
are social systems that make people feel better, that help people, that
make our society a better place. And sadly, the religion of science might
have done a better job of identifying truths, but in so doing, has ignored
some basic human needs.
Rejecting the myths of religion seem to me, to make people more selfish.
Those religious myths motivate people to be better members of society in
many ways. They serve to create a stronger society - which helps everyone
that is a member of the society.
What has the truth of science done to replace the good done by those myths?
Are atheists happier people than Christians (for example)?
Curt Welch
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
> "Dr. HotSalt" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > With science, belief is irrelevant; either the available evidence
> > agrees or not.
>
> Not so! You have to believe that the universe is self consistent.
> A universe run directly by a deity has no requirement to be self
> consistent, a universe that is not self consistent cannot be successfully
> analysed using the scientific method.
The scientific method would, in time, show the lack of constancy no matter
what the cause was (deity or otherwise).
It makes no difference what the universe is like (or what its cause is),
the scientific method is all we have to create our understanding with.
Rod Speed
>>> And people who become really mad when I say that Black Holes do not exist.
>>> Isn't the belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
>> Nope. Those are based on EVIDENCE.
> Only indirectly (very indirectly at that)
Thats not true of evolution. Its actually possible to demonstrate evolution
in the lab and we do it all the time with insecticide tolerance and antibiotics
in the wild too.
> nobody as ever observed a big bang or a black hole,
Yes, but science just says that those are viable explanations for
the evidence we do have, and if more evidence shows up later, the
explanations will change if they no longer explain the evidence etc.
Religion doesnt work like that.
> evolution is better but still AFAIK nobody
> has ever observed a new species appearing.
Thats just plain wrong with stuff like HIV/AIDS and like I said we
have observed evolution in the lab and in the wild all the time.
> These things are *theories* (or in the case of black holes conse)
> which have so far not been falsified by observations.
Thats a hoary old line. Some like the laws of physics arent just theorys.
And yes, Newton's laws were refined when more evidence like relativity showed up.
Rod Speed
>> With science, belief is irrelevant; either the available evidence agrees or not.
> Not so!
Fraid so !!
> You have to believe that the universe is self consistent.
Nope. Science allows for the situation where the result has a random component.
In some situations that random component can completely
dominate what is actually observed like with radioactive decay.
Einstein was stupid enough to claim that god does not play dice
with the universe. Something clearly does with radioactive decay.
> A universe run directly by a deity has no requirement to be
> self consistent, a universe that is not self consistent cannot
> be successfully analysed using the scientific method.
That last is just plain wrong.
Even the most basic claim that smoking can produce lung
cancer is an example of something that can be and has
been successfully analysed using the scientific method.
It just makes it harder, you have to use statistics to reach a useful conclusion etc.
Rod Speed
That last is overstating it when mindless religious intolerance is considered.
> They are social systems that make people feel better, that
> help people, that make our society a better place. And sadly,
> the religion of science might have done a better job of identifying
> truths, but in so doing, has ignored some basic human needs.
That last is just plain wrong with some parts of science like psychology.
> Rejecting the myths of religion seem to me, to make people more selfish.
Not if the individual still does what makes sense like not murdering people etc.
> Those religious myths motivate people to be better members
> of society in many ways. They serve to create a stronger
> society - which helps everyone that is a member of the society.
Thats last is wrong with those who believe in a different religion quite a bit of the time.
> What has the truth of science done to replace the good done by those myths?
Psychology has produced quite a bit of stuff thats an even better crutch for
pathetically inadequate 'minds'.
Psychiatric drugs in spades.
> Are atheists happier people than Christians (for example)?
Happyness is such a nebulous concept.
And plenty may not be that happy with the idea that
once they die, that thats all there is. Its a fact anyway.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
> > These things are *theories* (or in the case of black holes conse)
> > which have so far not been falsified by observations.
>
> Thats a hoary old line. Some like the laws of physics arent just theorys.
They most certainly are - and they all depend on the most
fundamental theory of science, namely that the universe is self consistent,
if that one is false the whole lot goes out of the window. There may be no
laws at all - and nobody can prove that there are.
> And yes, Newton's laws were refined when more evidence like relativity
> showed up.
Relativity isn't evidence, the precession of the orbit of Mercury,
the results of the Michaelson-Morley experiment, the drift if the clocks in
GPS satellites are all evidence which falsify Newton's theories of motion.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
cu...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
> > "Dr. HotSalt" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > With science, belief is irrelevant; either the available evidence
> > > agrees or not.
> >
> > Not so! You have to believe that the universe is self
> > consistent. A universe run directly by a deity has no requirement to be
> > self consistent, a universe that is not self consistent cannot be
> > successfully analysed using the scientific method.
>
> The scientific method would, in time, show the lack of constancy no matter
> what the cause was (deity or otherwise).
Not if the cause was intelligent and determined to present a
consistent viewpoint to anyone looking for one, while feeling free to play
silly buggers while nobody is looking. Once you abandon a requirement for
consistency all bets are off.
Personally I don't want to believe in an a universe that is not
self consistent but I have to be honest enough to admit that I cannot know
that it is.
> It makes no difference what the universe is like (or what its cause is),
> the scientific method is all we have to create our understanding with.
Indeed this is true, however it is an article of faith that it is
in fact understandable at all.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
des...@verizon.net wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:15:27 -0400
> > des...@verizon.net wrote:
> >
> >> Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Isn't the
> >> > belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
> >>
> >> Well, now you want to treat us to even more ignorance:
> >>
> >> Stars have been observed orbiting something we can't see in our
> >> own Milky Way. We can see the stars, we can't see the object they
> >> orbit and the stars are moving really fast. Black holes were
> >> predicted there and the orbiting stars are evidence.
> >
> > Trouble is that this observation cannot distinguish a neutron
> > star (or other very dense stellar mass) from a black hole.
>
> No, no trouble there at all.
> A neutron star is observable.
Really ? An object about 10 miles across is observable at a
distance of several light years ? Why on earth are they having so much
trouble producing maps of all the earth like planets in the galaxy then ?
Yes I do know about pulsars and the models that suggest strongly that they
are rotating neutron stars but that's not observation of a neutron star.
> >> There is other evidence.
> >
> > Nothing very direct - personally I'm still struggling
> > occasionally with a worry that it seems to me that forming a black hole
> > should take forever (as timed by a distant observer) due to
> > gravitational time dilation just as it takes forever to fall into one
> > (as timed by a distant observer).
>
> Nothing very direct? How about the predicted curvature of space
> confirmed by experiment around 100 years ago and since verified over and
> over again.
I'm sorry, how do I directly observe curvature of space ? Last I
checked that was a theory to account for gravitational attraction without
invoking action at a distance. I can certainly observe gravitational
attraction, but spatial curvature - nah.
> Do you have a theory that explains that this curvature can
> only go so far and stops before it curves in on itself. I've never
> heard one proposed. So either you doubt the curvature of space by
> gravity or black holes exist.
Right now that's a theory that hasn't been falsified. Nobody has
seen a black hole so there is no direct evidence that they exist.
> Unless you're going to trot out some actual science, this is just an
> attempt to create a universe devoid of things that are hard to
> understand. Beats me why some people want to do that though.
>
> Your struggling with time comes from failing to understand that time
> is relative.
I think not - although it has been a long time since I was familiar
enough with the mathematics involved to actually work with Einstein's
General Relativity equations. It is precisely because I do understand that
time is relative that the problem arises in my mind. From the viewpoint of
a distant observer the time taken for an object to fall to the event horizon
of a black hole is infinite, while from the viewpoint of the object it is
short (pretty much exactly what Newton would predict in fact). It seems to
me that because of this all the black holes are still in the process of
forming and will be (from my point of view) until I actually fall into one.
> >> Big Bangs are an attempt to explain the observed expansion of
> >> the universe.
> >
> > Strictly speaking expansion of the universe hasn't been
> > observed, what has been observed is an apparent red shift in the light
> > from distant objects which gets more extreme the more distant the
> > object.
>
> Wrong.
You are suggesting that this red shift has not been observed ?
> Hint: Some stellar phenomena have characteristic brightness. These
> phenomena can be observed in distant galaxies and the brightness
> can be correlated with the red shift.
It is an assumption that these distant events are in fact of the
predicted brightness and that the distance is as calculated. Either way
this is evidence supporting the theory that the universe is expanding,
however it is not a direct observation of expansion (which is probably
impossible to do).
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
> > Dr. HotSalt <alie...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> With science, belief is irrelevant; either the available evidence
> >> agrees or not.
>
> > Not so!
>
> Fraid so !!
>
> > You have to believe that the universe is self consistent.
>
> Nope. Science allows for the situation where the result has a random
> component.
Not the same thing at all.
> In some situations that random component can completely
> dominate what is actually observed like with radioactive decay.
>
> Einstein was stupid enough to claim that god does not play dice
> with the universe. Something clearly does with radioactive decay.
>
> > A universe run directly by a deity has no requirement to be
> > self consistent, a universe that is not self consistent cannot
> > be successfully analysed using the scientific method.
>
> That last is just plain wrong.
Really - I propose that
a) God exists
b) God created the universe and controls every event in it
c) God chooses present an illusion of a consistent universe
d) God may choose at any time to abandon that illusion
Prove me wrong - noting that abandoning that consistency may
involve such things as planets suddenly orbiting at ten times the speed of
light in opposing directions, then stopping dead for a day before dancing,
while here on earth giants suddenly pull themselves from the glaciers and
dance with the angels on the heads of pins before vanishing in a puff of
smoke as the Himalayas invert themselves in imitation of Roger Dean. Or it
might just involve a single electron appearing out of nowhere.
> Even the most basic claim that smoking can produce lung
> cancer is an example of something that can be and has
> been successfully analysed using the scientific method.
Perhaps tomorrow God will decide that tobacco smoke becomes as
essential to life as oxygen and all non smokers will die choking on oxygen.
> It just makes it harder, you have to use statistics to reach a useful
> conclusion etc.
You really don't understand the concept of self consistent, in a
universe that is not self consistent *anything* can happen.
Rod Speed
>>> These things are *theories* (or in the case of black holes conse)
>>> which have so far not been falsified by observations.
>> Thats a hoary old line. Some like the laws of physics arent just theorys.
> They most certainly are
Nope. Its been proven experimentally that they are more than JUST theorys.
> - and they all depend on the most fundamental theory
> of science, namely that the universe is self consistent,
Nope. Its perfectly possible to do rigorous science when there
is a large element of random behavious present as well.
> if that one is false the whole lot goes out of the window.
Nope.
> There may be no laws at all - and nobody can prove that there are.
Its completely trivial to prove that there are some laws.
>> And yes, Newton's laws were refined when more evidence like relativity showed up.
> Relativity isn't evidence,
Relativistic effects are.
> the precession of the orbit of Mercury, the results of the
> Michaelson-Morley experiment, the drift if the clocks in
> GPS satellites are all evidence which falsify Newton's
> theories of motion.
They dont falsify them, they just show that they only hold when the speed is low.
Rod Speed
> des...@verizon.net wrote
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote
>>> des...@verizon.net wrote
>>>> Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Isn't the belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
>>>> Well, now you want to treat us to even more ignorance:
>>>> Stars have been observed orbiting something we can't see in
>>>> our own Milky Way. We can see the stars, we can't see the object
>>>> they orbit and the stars are moving really fast. Black holes were
>>>> predicted there and the orbiting stars are evidence.
>>> Trouble is that this observation cannot distinguish a neutron
>>> star (or other very dense stellar mass) from a black hole.
>> No, no trouble there at all.
>> A neutron star is observable.
> Really ?
Yep.
> An object about 10 miles across is observable at a distance of several light years ?
Yep.
> Why on earth are they having so much trouble producing
> maps of all the earth like planets in the galaxy then ?
Because planets arent stars and behave quite differently emissions wise.
> Yes I do know about pulsars and the models that suggest
> strongly that they are rotating neutron stars but that's not
> observation of a neutron star.
>>>> There is other evidence.
>>> Nothing very direct - personally I'm still struggling
>>> occasionally with a worry that it seems to me that forming a black
>>> hole should take forever (as timed by a distant observer) due to
>>> gravitational time dilation just as it takes forever to fall into
>>> one (as timed by a distant observer).
>> Nothing very direct? How about the predicted curvature of
>> space confirmed by experiment around 100 years ago and since
>> verified over and over again.
> I'm sorry, how do I directly observe curvature of space ? Last I
> checked that was a theory to account for gravitational attraction
> without invoking action at a distance. I can certainly observe
> gravitational attraction, but spatial curvature - nah.
>> Do you have a theory that explains that this curvature can
>> only go so far and stops before it curves in on itself. I've
>> never heard one proposed. So either you doubt the curvature of
>> space by gravity or black holes exist.
> Right now that's a theory that hasn't been falsified. Nobody has
> seen a black hole so there is no direct evidence that they exist.
No one has seen a neutron. That doesnt mean that there is no direct evidence that they exist.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
>>> Dr. HotSalt <alie...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> With science, belief is irrelevant; either the available evidence agrees or not.
>>> Not so!
>> Fraid so !!
>>> You have to believe that the universe is self consistent.
>> Nope. Science allows for the situation where the result has a random component.
> Not the same thing at all.
Corse it is.
>> In some situations that random component can completely
>> dominate what is actually observed like with radioactive decay.
>> Einstein was stupid enough to claim that god does not play dice
>> with the universe. Something clearly does with radioactive decay.
>>> A universe run directly by a deity has no requirement to be
>>> self consistent, a universe that is not self consistent cannot
>>> be successfully analysed using the scientific method.
>> That last is just plain wrong.
> Really - I propose that
> a) God exists
> b) God created the universe and controls every event in it
> c) God chooses present an illusion of a consistent universe
> d) God may choose at any time to abandon that illusion
> Prove me wrong - noting that abandoning that consistency may
> involve such things as planets suddenly orbiting at ten times the
> speed of light in opposing directions, then stopping dead for a day
> before dancing, while here on earth giants suddenly pull themselves
> from the glaciers and dance with the angels on the heads of pins
> before vanishing in a puff of smoke as the Himalayas invert
> themselves in imitation of Roger Dean. Or it might just involve a
> single electron appearing out of nowhere.
Irrelevant to that claim of yours about what can be done with the scientific method.
>> Even the most basic claim that smoking can produce lung
>> cancer is an example of something that can be and has
>> been successfully analysed using the scientific method.
> Perhaps tomorrow God will decide that tobacco smoke becomes as
> essential to life as oxygen and all non smokers will die choking on oxygen.
Irrelevant to that claim of yours about what can be done with the scientific method.
>> It just makes it harder, you have to use statistics to reach a useful conclusion etc.
> You really don't understand the concept of self consistent,
Wrong.
> in a universe that is not self consistent *anything* can happen.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-consistent
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
> > the precession of the orbit of Mercury, the results of the
> > Michaelson-Morley experiment, the drift if the clocks in
> > GPS satellites are all evidence which falsify Newton's
> > theories of motion.
>
> They dont falsify them, they just show that they only hold when the speed
> is low.
Oh really ? Up to what speed do Newton's equations of motion hold ?
Hint, if relativity is correct the answer is 0.
Rod Speed
>>> the precession of the orbit of Mercury, the results of the
>>> Michaelson-Morley experiment, the drift if the clocks in
>>> GPS satellites are all evidence which falsify Newton's
>>> theories of motion.
>> They dont falsify them, they just show that they only hold when the speed is low.
> Oh really ?
Yes, really.
> Up to what speed do Newton's equations of motion hold ?
> Hint, if relativity is correct the answer is 0.
Mindlessly silly.
Curt Welch
> In article <20110331160850....@eircom.net>,
> ste...@eircom.net (Ahem A Rivet's Shot) writes:
>
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:17:01 +1100
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Han de Bruijn wrote
> >>
> >>> And people who become really mad when I say that Black Holes do not
> >>> exist. Isn't the belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution
> >>> itself a religion?
> >>
> >> Nope. Those are based on EVIDENCE.
> >
> > Only indirectly (very indirectly at that) nobody as ever
> > observed a big bang or a black hole, evolution is better but still
> > AFAIK nobody has ever observed a new species appearing.
They have. There are many examples.
You should read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
It's true that much of what is speculated about evolution being the only
force at work creating all life on Earth is just that - pure speculation.
We can never know the truth about the full history of life on earth simply
because most the history has been lost to time.
It's totally possible that DNA life as we know was actually engineered in a
laboratory by some alien and then seeded on earth either on purpose, or
just through accident. We don't have any evidence to support that, but we
don't have enough data to say with much certainty such a thing didn't
happen. We don't have the tools and knowledge needed to say if 4 billion
years is enough time for it to have evolved on it's own without some type
of outside help.
However, based on the weak evidence we do have, the idea that life in
general, evolved here on earth without any major influence from external
sources (especially intelligent ones) is by far the strongest hypothesis.
The actual path of evolution that life took on earth is mostly unknown, so
there's plenty of room for further research and understanding to develop as
more evidence is collected. At some point, we might be able to provide
strong evidence that life as it exists today is unlikely to have evolved in
4 billion years without external help of some sort. The odds are against
that currently however.
Science, like all knowledge, is just a matter of weighing the evidence to
make estimations as to what is likely. There are no absolutes - just lots
of educated guesses each with varying amounts of supporting evidence.
The social debates about evolution is not a debate of science. It's a
debate over human instincts. Some people believe their gut feelings are a
more important form of evidence that the objective data science is based
on. It's hard for us humans to separate our gut feelings from the facts.
It's almost impossible because our gut feelings are what drives everything
we think and do.
One important piece of the puzzle science has not yet cracked, is the human
mind. Because science has not solved that puzzle let, it allows people to
put far more faith in their gut instincts than science would otherwise
justify.
I'm sure the brain is nothing special. It's just a reinforcement learning
machine that is itself, nothing more than a type of "computer" doing what
is basically nothing more than the scientific method at a low level in the
hardware to form estimations of future rewards. As such, anything a human
"believes" should be subject to the same verifications we use in science.
However, my belief is not universal yet because science doesn't have the
proof. As such, people are still free to trust science, while at the same
time, choosing to believe their own feelings, are something "more" than
just the act of a machine "computing" optimal behaviors. There are still
free to believe that there own mind, is something highly special -
something beyond the reach of science - something that must come from
something outside of the domain of science.
We don't have enough evidence to make it clear such a belief is wrong. And
without that evidence, faith in faith, is still a logically valid
scientific position (even if it's one I personally reject out right).
Once the full truth of what the brain is, and what the mind is, comes to
light by the tools of science, then there will be no room left for faith in
faith. But we are not there yet.
And because we are not there yet, some people still have reasonable doubts
about evolution. And there is no science to show their desire to doubt, is
wrong. Not yet at least.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope, mathematically correct. Now please your suggestion and
justification of it.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
cu...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <20110331160850....@eircom.net>,
> > ste...@eircom.net (Ahem A Rivet's Shot) writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:17:01 +1100
> > > "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Han de Bruijn wrote
> > >>
> > >>> And people who become really mad when I say that Black Holes do not
> > >>> exist. Isn't the belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution
> > >>> itself a religion?
> > >>
> > >> Nope. Those are based on EVIDENCE.
> > >
> > > Only indirectly (very indirectly at that) nobody as ever
> > > observed a big bang or a black hole, evolution is better but still
> > > AFAIK nobody has ever observed a new species appearing.
>
> They have. There are many examples.
>
> You should read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Thank you - that looks like a good read.
<snip much excellent logic>
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> That last is just plain wrong.
>
> > Really - I propose that
>
> > a) God exists
> > b) God created the universe and controls every event in it
> > c) God chooses present an illusion of a consistent universe
> > d) God may choose at any time to abandon that illusion
>
> > Prove me wrong - noting that abandoning that consistency may
> > involve such things as planets suddenly orbiting at ten times the
> > speed of light in opposing directions, then stopping dead for a day
> > before dancing, while here on earth giants suddenly pull themselves
> > from the glaciers and dance with the angels on the heads of pins
> > before vanishing in a puff of smoke as the Himalayas invert
> > themselves in imitation of Roger Dean. Or it might just involve a
> > single electron appearing out of nowhere.
>
> Irrelevant to that claim of yours about what can be done with the
> scientific method.
Last try - if the universe really is as I described above then the
scientific method has no validity.
Rod Speed
> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote
>> ste...@eircom.net (Ahem A Rivet's Shot) wrote
>>>>> And people who become really mad when I say that Black Holes do
>>>>> not exist. Isn't the belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and
>>>>> Evolution itself a religion?
>>>> Nope. Those are based on EVIDENCE.
>>> Only indirectly (very indirectly at that) nobody as ever
>>> observed a big bang or a black hole, evolution is better but still
>>> AFAIK nobody has ever observed a new species appearing.
> They have. There are many examples.
> You should read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> It's true that much of what is speculated about evolution being the
> only force at work creating all life on Earth is just that - pure speculation.
Thats overstating it.
> We can never know the truth about the full history of life on
> earth simply because most the history has been lost to time.
Not when the DNA record is considered.
> It's totally possible that DNA life as we know was actually
> engineered in a laboratory by some alien and then seeded
> on earth either on purpose, or just through accident. We don't
> have any evidence to support that, but we don't have enough
> data to say with much certainty such a thing didn't happen.
Thats another example of extraordinary claims requiring evidence to support them.
> We don't have the tools and knowledge needed to say if 4 billion years is enough
> time for it to have evolved on it's own without some type of outside help.
But we dont know that we wont ever have that evidence.
Before DNA was discovered, you could have validly claimed that its
unlikely we would ever be able to work out what evolved from what.
DNA has now changed that forever.
> However, based on the weak evidence we do have, the idea
> that life in general, evolved here on earth without any major
> influence from external sources (especially intelligent ones)
> is by far the strongest hypothesis.
> The actual path of evolution that life took on earth is mostly unknown,
Not when the DNA record is considered.
> so there's plenty of room for further research and understanding
> to develop as more evidence is collected. At some point, we might
> be able to provide strong evidence that life as it exists today is unlikely
> to have evolved in 4 billion years without external help of some sort.
> The odds are against that currently however.
That last doesnt have any real evidence to support it.
> Science, like all knowledge, is just a matter of weighing
> the evidence to make estimations as to what is likely.
> There are no absolutes - just lots of educated guesses
> each with varying amounts of supporting evidence.
Rigorous science is about a hell of a lot more than just educated guesses.
> The social debates about evolution is not a debate of science.
> It's a debate over human instincts. Some people believe their
> gut feelings are a more important form of evidence that the
> objective data science is based on.
And some are clearly too stupid to be able to grasp how it
would be possible to evolve from pond slime to a mammal etc.
> It's hard for us humans to separate our gut feelings
> from the facts. It's almost impossible because our gut
> feelings are what drives everything we think and do.
Thats not what rigorous science is about.
> One important piece of the puzzle science has not yet cracked,
> is the human mind. Because science has not solved that puzzle
> let, it allows people to put far more faith in their gut instincts
> than science would otherwise justify.
Thats not what rigorous science is about.
> I'm sure the brain is nothing special. It's just a reinforcement
> learning machine that is itself, nothing more than a type of
> "computer" doing what is basically nothing more than the scientific
> method at a low level in the hardware to form estimations of future
> rewards. As such, anything a human "believes" should be subject
> to the same verifications we use in science.
> However, my belief is not universal yet because science doesn't have
> the proof. As such, people are still free to trust science, while at
> the same time, choosing to believe their own feelings, are something
> "more" than just the act of a machine "computing" optimal behaviors.
> There are still free to believe that there own mind, is something
> highly special - something beyond the reach of science - something
> that must come from something outside of the domain of science.
> We don't have enough evidence to make it clear such a belief is
> wrong. And without that evidence, faith in faith, is still a logically
> valid scientific position (even if it's one I personally reject out right).
Thats not what rigorous science is about.
> Once the full truth of what the brain is, and what the mind is,
> comes to light by the tools of science, then there will be no
> room left for faith in faith. But we are not there yet.
> And because we are not there yet, some people
> still have reasonable doubts about evolution.
Those doubts arent reasonable, they are in fact completely
unreasonable when we can actually do evolution in the lab etc.
> And there is no science to show their desire to doubt, is wrong.
Thats just plain wrong.
> Not yet at least.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
>>>>> the precession of the orbit of Mercury, the results of the
>>>>> Michaelson-Morley experiment, the drift if the clocks in
>>>>> GPS satellites are all evidence which falsify Newton's
>>>>> theories of motion.
>>>> They dont falsify them, they just show that they only hold when the speed is low.
>>> Oh really ?
>> Yes, really.
>>> Up to what speed do Newton's equations of motion hold ?
>>> Hint, if relativity is correct the answer is 0.
>> Mindlessly silly.
> Nope, mathematically correct.
Nope, mindlessly silly.
> Now please your suggestion and justification of it.
Try that again, its incomprehensible.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> A universe run directly by a deity has no requirement to be
>>>>> self consistent, a universe that is not self consistent cannot
>>>>> be successfully analysed using the scientific method.
>>>> That last is just plain wrong.
>>> Really - I propose that
>>> a) God exists
>>> b) God created the universe and controls every event in it
>>> c) God chooses present an illusion of a consistent universe
>>> d) God may choose at any time to abandon that illusion
>>> Prove me wrong - noting that abandoning that consistency may
>>> involve such things as planets suddenly orbiting at ten times the
>>> speed of light in opposing directions, then stopping dead for a day
>>> before dancing, while here on earth giants suddenly pull themselves
>>> from the glaciers and dance with the angels on the heads of pins
>>> before vanishing in a puff of smoke as the Himalayas invert
>>> themselves in imitation of Roger Dean. Or it might just involve a
>>> single electron appearing out of nowhere.
>> Irrelevant to that claim of yours about what can be done with the scientific method.
> Last try - if the universe really is as I described
> above then the scientific method has no validity.
Like I said, irrelevant to that claim of yours about what can be done with the scientific method.
des...@verizon.net
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:06:49 -0400
> des...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:15:27 -0400
>> > des...@verizon.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Isn't the
>> >> > belief in Black Holes and Big Bangs and Evolution itself a religion?
>> >>
>> >> Well, now you want to treat us to even more ignorance:
>> >>
>> >> Stars have been observed orbiting something we can't see in our
>> >> own Milky Way. We can see the stars, we can't see the object they
>> >> orbit and the stars are moving really fast. Black holes were
>> >> predicted there and the orbiting stars are evidence.
>> >
>> > Trouble is that this observation cannot distinguish a neutron
>> > star (or other very dense stellar mass) from a black hole.
>>
>> No, no trouble there at all.
>> A neutron star is observable.
>
> Really ? An object about 10 miles across is observable at a
> distance of several light years ? Why on earth are they having so much
> trouble producing maps of all the earth like planets in the galaxy then ?
> Yes I do know about pulsars and the models that suggest strongly that they
> are rotating neutron stars but that's not observation of a neutron star.
As Rod said, yes it is.
You seem to be postulating that direct observation is somehow special.
It's not. What we see is only an approximation after all.
We look at a table and think we see wood grain.
What's really there, (electrons, atoms, molecules) eludes us completely.
Point being, we have consistent theories that tell us what a neutron
star should do and we observe data consistent with that. Those stars
are observed as well as we observe anything else.
>> >> There is other evidence.
>> >
>> > Nothing very direct - personally I'm still struggling
>> > occasionally with a worry that it seems to me that forming a black hole
>> > should take forever (as timed by a distant observer) due to
>> > gravitational time dilation just as it takes forever to fall into one
>> > (as timed by a distant observer).
>>
>> Nothing very direct? How about the predicted curvature of space
>> confirmed by experiment around 100 years ago and since verified over and
>> over again.
>
> I'm sorry, how do I directly observe curvature of space ? Last I
> checked that was a theory to account for gravitational attraction without
> invoking action at a distance. I can certainly observe gravitational
> attraction, but spatial curvature - nah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
>> Do you have a theory that explains that this curvature can
>> only go so far and stops before it curves in on itself. I've never
>> heard one proposed. So either you doubt the curvature of space by
>> gravity or black holes exist.
>
> Right now that's a theory that hasn't been falsified. Nobody has
> seen a black hole so there is no direct evidence that they exist.
Well, first off, if you "saw" a black hole, it wouldn't be a black hole.
Here's your chance to observe one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvuV3GdVaY4
>> Unless you're going to trot out some actual science, this is just an
>> attempt to create a universe devoid of things that are hard to
>> understand. Beats me why some people want to do that though.
>>
>> Your struggling with time comes from failing to understand that time
>> is relative.
>
> I think not - although it has been a long time since I was familiar
> enough with the mathematics involved to actually work with Einstein's
> General Relativity equations. It is precisely because I do understand that
> time is relative that the problem arises in my mind. From the viewpoint of
> a distant observer the time taken for an object to fall to the event horizon
> of a black hole is infinite, while from the viewpoint of the object it is
> short (pretty much exactly what Newton would predict in fact). It seems to
> me that because of this all the black holes are still in the process of
> forming and will be (from my point of view) until I actually fall into one.
I think you actually have the science right but want to deny it.
Black Holes are paradoxical to our every day way if thinking.
That makes not the slightest bit of difference.
>> >> Big Bangs are an attempt to explain the observed expansion of
>> >> the universe.
>> >
>> > Strictly speaking expansion of the universe hasn't been
>> > observed, what has been observed is an apparent red shift in the light
>> > from distant objects which gets more extreme the more distant the
>> > object.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> You are suggesting that this red shift has not been observed ?
>
>> Hint: Some stellar phenomena have characteristic brightness. These
>> phenomena can be observed in distant galaxies and the brightness
>> can be correlated with the red shift.
>
> It is an assumption that these distant events are in fact of the
> predicted brightness and that the distance is as calculated. Either way
> this is evidence supporting the theory that the universe is expanding,
> however it is not a direct observation of expansion (which is probably
> impossible to do).
I'm really not following the point you're trying to make, unless you
are trying to say, there is plenty of evidence that the universe is
expanding but we haven't any time lapse photography showing movement.
As I tried to explain above, visual observation isn't particularly
important in knowing something happens.
Jimmy John
<aefb0bd0-f2a5-4445...@d19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are even more observations that are _not_ in concordance with
> Evolution theory. Talking about having a bias and a religion ..
>
> Han de Bruijn
And what might those be?
Jimmy John
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
> "Dr. HotSalt" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > With science, belief is irrelevant; either the available evidence
> > agrees or not.
>
> Not so! You have to believe that the universe is self consistent.
As a scientific hypothesis, the available evidence seems to agree with
the self consistency of the universe.
Such bootstrapping seems justified.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the maximum speed at which Newton's equations are correct ?
I claim it's 0 (assuming relativity), what speed do you claim ?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
des...@verizon.net wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
>
> > I think not - although it has been a long time since I was
> > familiar enough with the mathematics involved to actually work with
> > Einstein's General Relativity equations. It is precisely because I do
> > understand that time is relative that the problem arises in my mind.
> > From the viewpoint of a distant observer the time taken for an object
> > to fall to the event horizon of a black hole is infinite, while from
> > the viewpoint of the object it is short (pretty much exactly what
> > Newton would predict in fact). It seems to me that because of this all
> > the black holes are still in the process of forming and will be (from
> > my point of view) until I actually fall into one.
>
> I think you actually have the science right but want to deny it.
If so then there are no black holes in the universe I can observe
because they haven't formed yet.
> > It is an assumption that these distant events are in fact of the
> > predicted brightness and that the distance is as calculated. Either way
> > this is evidence supporting the theory that the universe is expanding,
> > however it is not a direct observation of expansion (which is probably
> > impossible to do).
>
> I'm really not following the point you're trying to make, unless you
> are trying to say, there is plenty of evidence that the universe is
> expanding but we haven't any time lapse photography showing movement.
Or indeed any direct measurements showing expansion. I don't expect
we ever will have any direct evidence of expansion, and I expect we'll
continue to accumulate evidence consistent with expansion. However we don't
know we're in an expanding universe, other interpretations are possible
even if they're getting hard to dream up.