Marilyn vos Savant on faith
Raimundo M Kovac
to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
RK
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Cyberia
news:80nikj$ai7$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
> In <80nhu3$vbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Raimundo M Kovac <rko...@ric.edu>
> writes:
> >
> >Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She
<snip>
>
> Why send a comment. Her logic is flawless, a correct assessment of
> modern physics...
Not at all... Creationism is not based on direct observation of the
workings of the universe. The big bang theory is. You do not see a
distinction ?
--
SeeYa !
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello... Is this thing on ?
james d. hunter
>
> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:80nikj$ai7$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > In <80nhu3$vbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Raimundo M Kovac <rko...@ric.edu>
> > writes:
> > >
> > >Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Why send a comment. Her logic is flawless, a correct assessment of
> > modern physics...
Actually modern physics is really not all that difficult to
understand. Modern naturalists are difficult to understand.
Nature is known to abhor vacuums and naturalists are known
to adore vacuums. So something obviously doesn't compute.
Lou Minatti™
I read it and I agree with her.
--
Prepare to be spooked!
http://www.watchingyou.com
Try explaining Ed Wollman to a kid.
Mark Folsom
news:80nk32$r...@news-central.tiac.net...
> Raimundo M Kovac (rko...@ric.edu) wrote:
> : Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She responds
> : to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
> : State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
> : she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
> : belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
> : faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
> : And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
> : So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
> : She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
>
> what Marilyn vos Savant believes, or writes?
We should care. You should care. The people who read that shit vote for
the people who decide on science budgets. They also elect school boards.
If too many people discount science and its underlying epistemology, the
cretinists and other superstitious types will win, because they have a
simpler, more humanistic story to tell.
>
> Gimme a break! What comes next, the intellectual reflections of
> John Travolta and Morgan Fairchild?
That may be the foundation for public policy re science, given default of
the field by scientists.
Mark Folsom
Nathan Urban
> The Big Bang Theory is based on inferences based on premises [...]
As is any scientific theory.
> Many of the observations made to verify the Big Bang Theory contradict it.
Name one.
> Which is why it is a theory, an attempt to explain observations.
> To believe in it as fact, as it is presented in many high school
> textbooks, makes it a faith-based belief, since the jury certainly
> isn't in yet.
This gets down to the same boring old "what is a theory, what is a fact"
debate, which is summarized quite well in the talk.origins FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
In brief: a scientific theory cannot ever be _proven_ true; it can only
be shown to be consistent with all available data. However, a belief
in the validity of a scientific theory cannot be placed on the same
level of "faith" as theistic beliefs, since the former is supported by
an inductively generalizable collection of objective observational data
while the latter is not.
For instance, I know that the Sun has risen every morning since I've
been alive. I can thus generalize to claim with great confidence that
it will rise tomorrow based on this data. I might even go as far as
to say that it's a fact that the Sun will rise tomorrow, even though I
can't know that for sure. While I don't know it for sure -- the jury
isn't in yet, and there's no way of knowing that tonight the Sun might
vanish -- my belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow is not on the same
level of "faith" as, say, a belief that invisible pink leprechauns exist.
In the former case, there is a very large body of widely corroborated
and objective observational evidence in support of that belief; in the
latter there is not.
While it may be true in a technical sense that I "have faith" that the Sun
will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with certainty,
in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this kind of
"faith" and theistic faith.
John A. De Goes
It overlooks those who do not _believe_ in theories, but rather accept those
that have yet to be rejected by experiment, and gives primacy to those that
have made testable predictions (like the cosmic microwave background) that
proved to be consistent with observation.
DE GOES
I quote a selection of the above for emphasis:
>...those do not believe...but rather accept those [theories] that have yet to
be rejected...
According to your biased, bigoted piece of illogic, a religious person who does
not believe her religion is correct, but rather accepts her religion because it
has not been disproved by experiment, and because it makes testable
predictions, is altogether different than a religious person who "believes" her
religion is true.
If you dispute this and say (1) a person cannot accept a theory and yet
withhold belief in that theory, then you have contradicted yourself, for your
"argument" above assumes there exist some people who do not believe theories
and yet accept them. If you say (2) religion has been disproved by experiment,
you are guilty of the fallacy of attempting to derive a statement of universal
application from an examination of a few specific instances. If you say (3)
religion does not make testable predictions, then you are guilty of that same
fallacy. In either case (2) or (3), I can present numerous counterexamples of
religions that both have not been shown to be false and make testable
predictions, and invent as many more such religions as required.
Therefore, it is obvious you must draw an absurd distinction between
"accepting" things and "believing" them, thus implying that if the Kansas board
of education had proclaimed, "We have decided to accept creationism as true and
teach it in our schools, yet not believe in it," then you would have been
completely satisfied. But we both know you would not be satisfied with such a
position, so in your mind there is no distinction between "accepting" and
"believing". When you claimed there was, you were lying, attempting to give
whatever viewpoint you subscribe to the upperhand by removing the negative
connotations associated with the word "belief" from that viewpoint, thus
justifying the position of its followers (particularly yourself).
Moreover, you -- and a great many of your fundamentalist atheist friends, who
have replied as you have (yes, you are that obvious)[1] -- have, in your great
religious zeal, been completely blinded to the *meaning* of Marilyn's reply,
just as some fundamentalist pastor would seize upon the chance to attack any
possible threat, whether real, contrived, or purposely imagined. You saw that
Marilyn did not lash out at your "enemies" and exalt your ideology, and
immediately your innate, animalistic desire to protect yourself from harm
kicked in, albeit in a context far different than that in which it originally
developed. This tendency for self-preservation, which, unfortunately, has no
value in the world of abstractions, then clouded your thought, rendering her
point utterly inaccessible to you.
Therefore I will reiterate her point in the simplest of terms: a representative
person taken from among the general populace who believes in the big bang
theory will, if asked why he or she believes in the theory, reply that evidence
found to date corroborates this theory, and, perhaps, that no other theory does
such a fine job of explaining the evidence. Such a person, however, is not
telling the strict truth, for the person, being representative by definition,
has handled or seen no such evidence, nor, indeed, has the education and
experience that would be necessary to do so. Rather, when people come to such
conclusions, be it about the big bang or any other theory outside of their
immediate experience, they do so based on *reports* from others -- whom, for
whatever reasons, they trust. They themselves *cannot* justify their beliefs
except by appealing to the claims of "established" authority. This parallels
exactly the behavior of religious people, who justify their religion by
appealing to the claims of spiritual leaders. As Marilyn said, the difference
between the groups is simply that they "respect different folks."
CARR
In fact, she begs the question by assuming that the only choice is between
_believing_ in the Big Bang and _believing_ in a 6000 year old universe created
in one of the various ways that are not too inconsistent with the Bible with a
faked geologic record.
DE GOES
Actually, she doesn't. You invented this strawperson to make your job
[misguided self-preservation] easier.
--
John A. De Goes
* View artificial life on your computer with free software from
http://pages.prodigy.net/jdegoes/bugsss.html.
* Less than a nickel of every health care dollar is spent on medical research.
Visit http://www.researchamerica.org to learn what you can do.
[1] If Mr. Carr has publicly acknowledged being an atheist, then he cannot deny
this, but if he has not done so publicly, then he will claim to be an agnostic
in a vain attempt to mask his personal ideology.
Paul Stowe
>responds to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous
>decision by the Kansas State Board of Education (on the teaching
>of evolution). At one point, she asks those who believe in the
>Big Bang theory how they support their belief. And she continues
>"If you cannot, welcome to the world of faith. You're accepting
>what you've been told by those you respect. And that's what
>creationists do. They just respect different folks". So now
>science is based just on believing those you respect... She can
>be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
Why send a comment. Her logic is flawless, a correct assessment of
modern physics...
Paul Stowe
Gregory L. Hansen
Raimundo M Kovac <rko...@ric.edu> wrote:
>Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She responds
>to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
>State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
>she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
>belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
>faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
>And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
>So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
>She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
Looks to me like she didn't ask how cosmologists justify the Big Bang.
She asked how you, Raimundo M Kovac, justify the Big Bang. If you, Mr.
Kovac (or other random person) accept Big Bang cosmology just because
that's the scientific viewpoint, but you can't explain the evidence for
it, then it is a type of faith.
The difference with science is that the evidence is there for anyone
interested enough to go looking for it.
--
"That's not an avocado, that's a grenade!" -- The Skipper
Harry H Conover
: Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She responds
: to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
: State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
: she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
: belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
: faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
: And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
: So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
: She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
Seriously, do you really believe that anyone in sci.physics cares
what Marilyn vos Savant believes, or writes?
Gimme a break! What comes next, the intellectual reflections of
John Travolta and Morgan Fairchild?
Get a life!
Harry C.
Axel Harvey
> Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine?
Not my cup of tea so I haven't, but I can't help noting...
> she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
> belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
> faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
> And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
> So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
...that you report her as talking about people who believe in something
without being able to support it, and that you seem to equate this with
science. (I know you don't "believe" that: I'm just pointing out that
what MvS is talking about is parrots, not scientists.)
Carol
jim.h...@spam.free.jhuapl.edu. wrote:
> Cyberia wrote:
> >
> > Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:80nikj$ai7$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > Why send a comment. Her logic is flawless, a correct assessment
of
> > > modern physics...
>
> understand. Modern naturalists are difficult to understand.
> Nature is known to abhor vacuums and naturalists are known
> to adore vacuums. So something obviously doesn't compute.
>
> >
> > Not at all... Creationism is not based on direct observation of the
> > workings of the universe. The big bang theory is. You do not see a
> > distinction ?
> >
> > --
> > SeeYa !
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hello... Is this thing on ?
certain levels of radiation are present in the universe, and why
certain interactions appear to be occurring between stars (all seem to
be moving away from each other, for instance), as well as on certain
ideas about how the universe is shaped (an expanding bubble idea).
Many of the observations made to verify the Big Bang Theory contradict
To believe in it as fact, as it is presented in many high school
textbooks, makes it a faith-based belief, since the jury certainly
isn't in yet.
--
Best regards,
Carol Ann
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
Jim Carr
>
>Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine?
Of course. Always good for a laugh or a grimace, but not
nearly as interesting as the fact that the TV dinner was
invented to try to get rid of a lot of leftover turkey at
Swanson's. That was a tasty factoid.
>She responds
>to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
>State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
>she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
>belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
>faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
>And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
>So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
Except that her argument is based on a strawman.
It overlooks those who do not _believe_ in theories, but rather
accept those that have yet to be rejected by experiment, and gives
primacy to those that have made testable predictions (like the cosmic
microwave background) that proved to be consistent with observation.
In fact, she begs the question by assuming that the only choice is
between _believing_ in the Big Bang and _believing_ in a 6000 year
old universe created in one of the various ways that are not too
inconsistent with the Bible with a faked geologic record. This is
bogus logic that one would not expect of an intelligent person.
That she would fail to notice this distinction between Creationist
Non-Science and science, and between logic and illogic, is sad.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Jim Carr
} to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
} State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
} she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
} belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
} faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
} And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
} So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
In article <80njob$6q1$4...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
>
>Looks to me like she didn't ask how cosmologists justify the Big Bang.
>She asked how you, Raimundo M Kovac, justify the Big Bang.
No, she did not ask that.
Read it again.
Cyberia
news:80o0ir$984$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>The Big Bang Theory is based on inferences based on premises about
why
> certain levels of radiation are present in the universe, and why
> certain interactions appear to be occurring between stars (all seem
to
> be moving away from each other, for instance), as well as on certain
> ideas about how the universe is shaped (an expanding bubble idea).
> Many of the observations made to verify the Big Bang Theory
contradict
> it. Which is why it is a theory, an attempt to explain
observations.
> To believe in it as fact, as it is presented in many high school
> textbooks, makes it a faith-based belief, since the jury certainly
> isn't in yet.
Of course. Now Creationism, is that also a theory that is supported by
observations ? No, it is an abandonment of reason. It is the
intellectual equivalent of fourth and long; "I don't know how the
universe came to be, but I know it must have been initiated by an all
powerful being."
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
>
> In brief: a scientific theory cannot ever be _proven_ true; it can only
> be shown to be consistent with all available data. However, a belief
> in the validity of a scientific theory cannot be placed on the same
> level of "faith" as theistic beliefs, since the former is supported by
> an inductively generalizable collection of objective observational data
> while the latter is not.
>
> For instance, I know that the Sun has risen every morning since I've
> been alive. I can thus generalize to claim with great confidence that
> it will rise tomorrow based on this data. I might even go as far as
> to say that it's a fact that the Sun will rise tomorrow, even though I
> can't know that for sure. While I don't know it for sure -- the jury
> isn't in yet, and there's no way of knowing that tonight the Sun might
> vanish -- my belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow is not on the same
> level of "faith" as, say, a belief that invisible pink leprechauns exist.
> In the former case, there is a very large body of widely corroborated
> and objective observational evidence in support of that belief; in the
> latter there is not.
>
> While it may be true in a technical sense that I "have faith" that the Sun
> will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with certainty,
> in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this kind of
> "faith" and theistic faith.
While belief in God does require faith, it is not a faith that is as devoid
of reason as a faith that "invisible pink leprechauns exist."
A person who believes in God (such as I do) does have a large amount of
evidence in his/her own life to support his/her belief. Typically this
is not the kind of evidence that would find its way into a scientific
journal. Usually this evidence is highly personal, for example, "I began
to live my life according to the Bible, and my life immeasurably improved."
This notion of evidence does not fit the standard scientific mold. But
we should not reject this kind of evidence - at least to the extent that
we should invalidate the reasonableness of those who hold these beliefs.
A very large number of people believe in God, and a very large number
believe that they have had some personal experience of God. For many
(including myself), this experience is as real as the experience of seeing
the sun rise each morning. For us to change our mind and decide that
God no longer exists would be as ludicrous to us as deciding that the
sun will not rise tomorrow. Our experience does not bear this out.
The pursuit of God is a search that man has been on for several millennia.
Whereas the scientific method has only been around for a few centuries.
By this reckoning, the scientific method is a recent fad in philosophical
thinking. Perhaps our belief in the scientific method is in itself a
great act of faith.
Indeed, I would be interested in how people justify the scientific method
(perhaps they could adequately explain it first).
--
Stephen Montgomery-Smith ste...@math.missouri.edu
307 Math Science Building ste...@showme.missouri.edu
Department of Mathematics ste...@missouri.edu
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
USA
Phone (573) 882 4540
Fax (573) 882 1869
Aaron Bergman
wrote:
>
>While belief in God does require faith, it is not a faith that is as devoid
>of reason as a faith that "invisible pink leprechauns exist."
They're invisible pink unicorns, dammit. Unicorns!
No one would be silly enough to believe in invisible pink
_leprachauns_.
Heathen.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Tony Gardner
> While belief in God does require faith, it is not a faith that is as devoid
> of reason as a faith that "invisible pink leprechauns exist."
>
> evidence in his/her own life to support his/her belief. Typically this
> is not the kind of evidence that would find its way into a scientific
> journal. Usually this evidence is highly personal, for example, "I began
> to live my life according to the Bible, and my life immeasurably improved."
>
> This notion of evidence does not fit the standard scientific mold. But
> we should not reject this kind of evidence - at least to the extent that
> we should invalidate the reasonableness of those who hold these beliefs.
> A very large number of people believe in God, and a very large number
> believe that they have had some personal experience of God. For many
> (including myself), this experience is as real as the experience of seeing
> the sun rise each morning. For us to change our mind and decide that
> God no longer exists would be as ludicrous to us as deciding that the
> sun will not rise tomorrow. Our experience does not bear this out.
>
> The pursuit of God is a search that man has been on for several millennia.
> Whereas the scientific method has only been around for a few centuries.
> By this reckoning, the scientific method is a recent fad in philosophical
> thinking. Perhaps our belief in the scientific method is in itself a
> great act of faith.
>
> Indeed, I would be interested in how people justify the scientific method
> (perhaps they could adequately explain it first).
The scientific method is justified by its results. Indeed, one of the
main strengths of the scientific method is a refusal to draw conclusions
beyond the data presented. In specific example: "I began to live my life
according to the Bible, and my life immeasurably improved.", the
scientific method would conclude that living life according to the
philisophy expounded in the bible, can improve life in a christian-model
society.
Note that available data does not require the existance of god, and my
conclusion is supported by the fact that most of our laws are based on
biblical precepts. It is also questionable as to whether your quality of
life would have improved in a society run according to precepts of a
different religion.
This is not to say that god does not exist. Merely that your evidence
does not suggest it. This is as fundamental to the scientific method as
the difference between the sun rising tomorrow, and rising every day,
forever.
Personally, I have a lot more faith in a god who created a fiendishly
complex universe, which created life in his image after 4 billion years
of permutations, than in one who had to constantly tinker in order to
get his desired outcome.
TG
Gerry Quinn
>In article <80nhu3$vbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Raimundo M Kovac <rko...@ric.edu> wrote:
>}
>} Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She responds
>} to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
>} State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
>} she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
>} belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
>} faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
>} And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
>} So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
>} She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
>
>In article <80njob$6q1$4...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
>>
>>Looks to me like she didn't ask how cosmologists justify the Big Bang.
>>She asked how you, Raimundo M Kovac, justify the Big Bang.
>
> No, she did not ask that.
>
> Read it again.
>
She addressed her remark to those who believe in the Big Bang theory AND
cannot support their belief. Her point is valid.
- Gerry Quinn
Nathan Urban
> Nathan Urban wrote:
> > While it may be true in a technical sense that I "have faith" that the Sun
> > will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with certainty,
> > in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this kind of
> > "faith" and theistic faith.
> While belief in God does require faith, it is not a faith that is as devoid
> of reason as a faith that "invisible pink leprechauns exist."
Really? And who are you to judge that you have more evidence or greater
reason in your belief than someone who believes in invisible pink
leprechauns? Oh wait, let me guess: "So many people can't be wrong."
In fact, I'd like to see you justify how you have more evidence or greater
reason in your belief than a lunatic has in his hallucinations. I mean,
_they_ think they have perfectly good reasons for believing what they do
-- often quite well rationalized -- and their experiences are completely
real to them. Honestly, it's sometimes hard for me to see much difference
between theirs and theistic beliefs other that in the case of lunatics,
irrationality usually permeates most other aspects of their lives.
(On the other hand, does this remind anyone else of the Martian
Chronicles?)
> A person who believes in God (such as I do) does have a large amount of
> evidence in his/her own life to support his/her belief. Typically this
> is not the kind of evidence that would find its way into a scientific
> journal. Usually this evidence is highly personal, for example, "I began
> to live my life according to the Bible, and my life immeasurably improved."
Which of course isn't even remotely evidence for the existence of God.
I'm sure you could come up with much better examples than that. _I_
could come up with better examples of that, and I'm not a theist.
All that the above evidence "proves" is that living your life a certain
way can make your life better. It's an unjustifiable logical leap to
conclude from that the existence of God.
You should note that others have lived their lives according to what is
proscribed by _other_ religions -- which contradict yours or any other
monotheistic religion -- and also according to various non-theistic
philosophies, and their lives also immeasurably improved.
I might also mention that placebos can have a proven medical benefit
on patients.. do you see the relevance?
> This notion of evidence does not fit the standard scientific mold. But
> we should not reject this kind of evidence - at least to the extent that
> we should invalidate the reasonableness of those who hold these beliefs.
> A very large number of people believe in God, and a very large number
> believe that they have had some personal experience of God.
A very large number of people believe in UFOs. A very large number once
believed the Earth was flat. An extremely large number believe in gods
other than yours. What does it matter how many people believe something?
> For many
> (including myself), this experience is as real as the experience of seeing
> the sun rise each morning.
It would be amusing to see you attempt to reconcile your "certain
knowledge" with the many who have an equally real experience of gods
other than yours.
> For us to change our mind and decide that
> God no longer exists would be as ludicrous to us as deciding that the
> sun will not rise tomorrow. Our experience does not bear this out.
You might do well to note how easy it is to deceive oneself about such
things, particularly when you have an enormous emotional stake in your
beliefs being true. Once again correlate this with all the people whose
experiences are flatly contradictory to yours.
There is irrefutable evidence that it is possible for someone to have
religious experiences that are "as real as the experience of seeing
the sun rise each morning" yet be _wrong_, because there are people of
many religions who have that experience, and it is not possible for all
of those religions to be true because at least some of them outright
contradict each other. Thus, there exist people who have completely
"real" religious experiences which cannot be true. So excuse me if I'm
skeptical of your "evidence". Of course, _you_ think that your evidence
is as strong as that for the sun rising. But so do a lot of other people,
and you can't all be right. Thus, I see no reason to believe that _any_
of you are right.
Interestingly, there is an extremely high correlation between the
particular god that people think is "as real as the sun" and the
particular culture in which they were raised. One would think that
Truth -- as opposed to a set of beliefs acquired by immersion in one's
culture -- would be a little more heterogeneous than that.
> The pursuit of God is a search that man has been on for several millennia.
> Whereas the scientific method has only been around for a few centuries.
After your argumentum ad populum, I see you are moving on to argumentum ad
antiquitatem. Perhaps you can collect the whole set of logical fallacies?
> Indeed, I would be interested in how people justify the scientific method
It has something to do with accepting evidence that can be _objectively_
verified. Which isn't to say that's the only kind of evidence a person --
even a scientist -- will accept. I accept personal evidence as well.
Of course, what I accept isn't the same as what you accept, and the
personal evidence I have isn't the same as the personal evidence you have.
I am also very careful about evaluating personal evidence, as examples
such as the multitude of contradictory religions prove that it is easy
to be led astray.
[Note followups.]
Nathan Urban
> According to your biased, bigoted piece of illogic,
In point of fact, you're the only bigot in this thread so far. Sadly,
threads like this tend to attract people like you. Other than your post,
though, this thread has been remarkable free of venom and bile.
Mark Huber
think about her answers, or even to look up the meanings of the
words she uses. Faith is one of those words that has several different
meanings, and in her answer she is confusing two very separate ideas.
With respect to belief in the Big Bang, faith refers to trust built over
time in the scientific community. The average person isn't just believing
a scientist on a lark, but because of the products that scientists
have brought into our lives over the years. The toaster, the
telephone, all of these are evidence that science works. When
someone lends greater weight to Big Bang theory because
they heard about it on PBS rather than what they have heard
on a ministerial show, it is because they have seen that
scientists, more often then not, are right in the end in their
statements concerning the physical world.
The other notion of faith is the theological one, where personal
revelation, acceptance of God's will, etc., come into play. Here
there is not a need for repeatable experiments or any other
element that results in trust built between humans. The issue
is with trust in the supernatural, a completely different bailiwick.
One meaning of faith is to believe in something or trust
something (or someone). Another meaning is acceptance of
the will of God. Yes, people trust scientists, they believe them
based on their track record, they have faith in them. But that
is wholely different from the faith in God that is the hallmark
of creationism, and it is at best disingenuous to try to
conflate the two meanings.
-mark
Raimundo M Kovac wrote in message <80nhu3$vbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She responds
>to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
>State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
>she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
>belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
>faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
>And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
>So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
>She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
>
>RK
Phunda Mental
> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:80nikj$ai7$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > In <80nhu3$vbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Raimundo M Kovac <rko...@ric.edu>
> > writes:
> > >
> > >Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Why send a comment. Her logic is flawless, a correct assessment of
> > modern physics...
>
> Not at all... Creationism is not based on direct observation of the
> workings of the universe. The big bang theory is. You do not see a
> distinction ?
Her logic is flawless.
Cite me examples explaining how the Big Bang is based on direct
empirical evidence. Such empirical evidence would need to have
taken place DURING the Big Bang.
All science is based on faith.
If you conduct an experiment here on Earth, and drawing conclusions
about how physics works on Mars you are basing your ideas on faith.
Specifically, you have faith that the universe is consistent. You have
faith that the rules don't change from place to place. If you look
to past experimental work, you are assuming that the rules don't
change from moment to moment.
You are assuming that the universe is ordered in some way. A
huge assumption in my opinion -- and yet people believe it
to the core of their being -- on faith.
Most people on this planet don't understand Newtonian physics,
let alone have the slightest idea about Relativity. Most people
don't conduct experiments looking to uncover the nature of
physical reality, but you seem to think that if they trust those
scientists who DO then they are somehow living a more reasonable
life than those who trust their preachers.
Before you go off half-cocked and say that the scientific community
can supply evidence, you must remember that the religious community
can too. There are loads of people that have had some experience or
another that makes them believe down to their bones that there is
a god and that the bible is a revelation from that god, whether that
evidence meets scientific criteria or not is irrelevent: it meets
the human criteria.
So, what is more reasonable.. believing what one has experienced for
himself (in this case, a religious experience) or trusting a bunch of
academics whose work he will never understand?
I am not religious, and I don't believe in a god or an afterlife.
I trust science, and I believe that the universe is ordered (see above)
but not because I can prove that universe is ordered any more than
the theist can prove the existence of his god.
I believe it on faith because I am human. Attempting to boil human
knowledge down to fit into some little formal system destroys the best
of what humanity is.
Phunda Mental
> While it may be true in a technical sense that I "have faith" that the Sun
> will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with certainty,
> in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this kind of
> "faith" and theistic faith.
I disagree. While I would say that your faith in the Sun rising (and mine!)
is certainly different than faith in pink leprechauns (to use your example)
I would not say it is all that different than belief in a major world religion.
You have seen the Sun rise N number of times, and so you believe it.
The deeply faithful feel that god has been there for them in the past
during all those hard times --
Just as you can point to a lifetime of watching the Sun rise as
the basis for your faith, they can point to a lifetime long relationship
with their god as the basis for theirs.
Now, certainly, there are differences here.. scientific criteria for
evaluating evidence is different from the religious perspective of
"evidence."
But this must be allowed for rather obvious reasons regarding the
assumptions behind scientific inquiry and religious thought.
Phunda Mental
> The scientific method is justified by its results.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits." - Christ
Sorry, couldn't resist :)
jmfb...@aol.com
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>In article <80nhu3$vbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>
>>Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine?
>
> nearly as interesting as the fact that the TV dinner was
> invented to try to get rid of a lot of leftover turkey at
> Swanson's. That was a tasty factoid.
<grin> And an example of marketing a common kitchen practice.
But it couldn't have happened until after the ice box. I wonder
how many will know what an ice box was?
>
>>She responds
>>to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
>>State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
>>she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
>>belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
>>faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
>>And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
>>So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
>
> Except that her argument is based on a strawman.
That always seemed to be her usual style. I stopped
reading her when she denigrated the study of mathematics.
We don't need her "help".
>
> It overlooks those who do not _believe_ in theories, but rather
> accept those that have yet to be rejected by experiment, and gives
> primacy to those that have made testable predictions (like the cosmic
> microwave background) that proved to be consistent with observation.
>
> In fact, she begs the question by assuming that the only choice is
> between _believing_ in the Big Bang and _believing_ in a 6000 year
> old universe created in one of the various ways that are not too
> inconsistent with the Bible with a faked geologic record. This is
> bogus logic that one would not expect of an intelligent person.
>
> That she would fail to notice this distinction between Creationist
> Non-Science and science, and between logic and illogic, is sad.
>
She always was an idiot.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Gregory L. Hansen
Jim Carr <j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>In article <80nhu3$vbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Raimundo M Kovac <rko...@ric.edu> wrote:
>}
>} to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
>} State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
>} she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
>} belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
>} faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
>} And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
>} So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
>>
>>Looks to me like she didn't ask how cosmologists justify the Big Bang.
>>She asked how you, Raimundo M Kovac, justify the Big Bang.
>
> No, she did not ask that.
>
> Read it again.
I only read the post. "...she asks those who believe in the Big Bang
theory how they support their belief. And she continues 'If you cannot,
welcome to the world of faith.'"
She didn't say that Big Bang cosmology is a matter of faith. She said
believing in the Big Bang is a matter of faith for those that trust
respected experts rather than understanding the evidence. And she's
right.
Andy
> Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She responds
> to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
> State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
> she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
> belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
> faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
> And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
> So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
Exactly, some physical laws and theories can be tested easily. For example
you do not have to trust Newton's Laws, you can test and measure them
directly.If a physics book says that acceleration due to gravity is about
9.8 m/s/s you can test and verify it with little more than a stopwatch, a
marble and a ruler.
If a physicist starts to talk about sub atomic particles you _have_ to take
it on faith (unless you have a particle accelerator in your back room).
Science can be roughly divided into two parts:- what you can measure and
verify and therefore do not need to take on trust and that which you cannot
verify personally and must take on faith (cosmological and astronomical
science, sub atomic physics, most radioacitve stuff, behaviour of exotic
animals etc etc).
I take a lot on faith.
Andy
Gregory L. Hansen
>Raimundo M Kovac wrote:
>Exactly, some physical laws and theories can be tested easily. For example
>you do not have to trust Newton's Laws, you can test and measure them
>directly.If a physics book says that acceleration due to gravity is about
>9.8 m/s/s you can test and verify it with little more than a stopwatch, a
>marble and a ruler.
>If a physicist starts to talk about sub atomic particles you _have_ to take
>it on faith (unless you have a particle accelerator in your back room).
>Science can be roughly divided into two parts:- what you can measure and
>verify and therefore do not need to take on trust and that which you cannot
>verify personally and must take on faith (cosmological and astronomical
>science, sub atomic physics, most radioacitve stuff, behaviour of exotic
>animals etc etc).
I make a distinction between faith and trust. Without much effort, you
can delve into even the popular literature and get some understanding of
the history and development of nuclear science, of cosmology, or other
exotic specialty that you can't do at home. If you accept the Big Bang
because you know about Hubble's constant and the microwave background
radiation and so on, then you are not simply accepting it on faith. But
you do need to trust that the factual information presented was accurate.
If a measurement of the Hubble constant is written up in Science News or
Discover magazine, I consider that a matter of trust that the measurement
was made in the manner described.
wetboy
: CARR
: It overlooks those who do not _believe_ in theories, but rather accept those
: that have yet to be rejected by experiment, and gives primacy to those that
: have made testable predictions (like the cosmic microwave background) that
: proved to be consistent with observation.
: DE GOES
: I quote a selection of the above for emphasis:
:>...those do not believe...but rather accept those [theories] that have yet to
: be rejected...
: According to your biased, bigoted piece of illogic, a religious person who does
: not believe her religion is correct, but rather accepts her religion because it
: has not been disproved by experiment, and because it makes testable
: predictions, is altogether different than a religious person who "believes" her
: religion is true.
Very precisely, what do mean by "believe"?
< snip >
: I can present numerous counterexamples of
: religions that both have not been shown to be false and make testable
: predictions, and invent as many more such religions as required.
OK, please do, and please make sure to include the testable predictions.
-- Wetboy
james d. hunter
MvS is "right" in the most obvious sense, in that she is just one more
philosopher. Philosophers make a major logical distinction between
"faith"
and "belief", as if they actually knew something about logic. "Trust"
is not too much different, since you can't trust a Lagrangian-slinging
naturalist further than you can throw them. Personally, I don't
believe
much about the Big Bang story, since it depends critically on the
Hubble
constant.
Richard Uhrich
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> Raimundo M Kovac (rko...@ric.edu) wrote:
> : Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She responds
> : to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
> : State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
> : she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
> : belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
> : faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
> : And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
> : So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
> : She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
>
> Seriously, do you really believe that anyone in sci.physics cares
> what Marilyn vos Savant believes, or writes?
>
> Gimme a break! What comes next, the intellectual reflections of
> John Travolta and Morgan Fairchild?
>
> Get a life!
>
> Harry C.
Harry, we should ALL care when the media misrepresent science.
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
>
> > A person who believes in God (such as I do) does have a large amount of
> > evidence in his/her own life to support his/her belief. Typically this
> > is not the kind of evidence that would find its way into a scientific
> > journal. Usually this evidence is highly personal, for example, "I began
> > to live my life according to the Bible, and my life immeasurably improved."
>
> Which of course isn't even remotely evidence for the existence of God.
> I'm sure you could come up with much better examples than that. _I_
> could come up with better examples of that, and I'm not a theist.
>
> All that the above evidence "proves" is that living your life a certain
> way can make your life better. It's an unjustifiable logical leap to
> conclude from that the existence of God.
>
If I live my life as if God exists, and that changes my life
immeasurably, I cannot conclude conclusively that God exists.
But an Occum's razor approach suggests that this is the simplest
explanation.
I mean, perhaps all my senses delude me. Perhaps I am a piece
of brain matter on a table, and all my experiences are fed
nito me, and my life is pure illusion. Perhaps, perhaps not.
But it makes sense to live life, accepting those experiences
that go on around me as valid.
Otherwise I may as well reject everything.
Richard Uhrich
Phunda Mental wrote:
>
> Cyberia wrote:
>
> > Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:80nikj$ai7$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > In <80nhu3$vbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Raimundo M Kovac <rko...@ric.edu>
> > > writes:
> > > >
> > > >Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > Why send a comment. Her logic is flawless, a correct assessment of
> > > modern physics...
> >
> > Not at all... Creationism is not based on direct observation of the
> > workings of the universe. The big bang theory is. You do not see a
> > distinction ?
>
> Her logic is flawless.
>
> Cite me examples explaining how the Big Bang is based on direct
> empirical evidence. Such empirical evidence would need to have
> taken place DURING the Big Bang.
>
> All science is based on faith.
>
At 03:26 PM 9/1/98 +0000, you wrote:
Richard
Bob and I wernt to the new Getty Mueseum last Saturday. I was
worndering
if this is a place you would enjoy seeing. As it took six month to get
a
Saturday reservation it may be awhile before I could get it done.
However
midday reservation are not as hard to come by and they have some first
come
first served space daily. I saw that it seem most acessable. Well let
me know
and I see what I can do.
Jan
>>>>>>>
I guess you think the value of PI is purely a matter of blind faith,
too. How many people have actually measured it? Can we be sure it hasn't
changed lately?
It is a very good tool for predicting results, though. So does science.
No religious belief can do this.
John Hattan
>If I live my life as if God exists, and that changes my life
>immeasurably, I cannot conclude conclusively that God exists.
>But an Occum's razor approach suggests that this is the simplest
>explanation.
And if I read the Koran, and that changes my life immeasurably, I cannot
conclude conclusively that Allah exists. But an Occum's razor approach
suggests that this is the simplest explanation.
And if I read the Vedas, and that changes my life immeasurably, I cannot
conclude conclusively that Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu exist. But an
Occum's razor approach suggests that this is the simplest explanation.
And if I read _Dianetics_, and that changes my life immeasurably, I
cannot conclude conclusively that ancient spiritual Body Thetans are
stuck to me. But an Occum's razor approach suggests that this is the
simplest explanation.
[continue endlessly]
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john-...@home.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner
Wundergeist
Conover) wrote:
> Seriously, do you really believe that anyone in sci.physics cares
> what Marilyn vos Savant believes, or writes?
In sci.math we do! We have a shortage of jokes.
> Gimme a break! What comes next, the intellectual reflections of
> John Travolta and Morgan Fairchild?
Hey, if childhood IQ is supposed to substitute for actual thought and
knowledge, why not use physical attibutes for the same? :-)
--
http://www.geocities.com/wundergeist/
[English content on hold pending revision]
Wundergeist
(I know you don't "believe" that: I'm just pointing out that
> what MvS is talking about is parrots, not scientists.)
She would't be able to tell the difference...
Wundergeist
> It is good that we still have Marilyn vos Savant to kick around.
> And she so richly deserves it.
It's an unfair fight, though. Knowledge and training against ignorance
and ego (hers, let's calrify that); unfortunately, she does have a
media outlet whose incentive is to parade (pun intended) her as an
expert in everything...
Wundergeist
> > Seriously, do you really believe that anyone in sci.physics cares
> > what Marilyn vos Savant believes, or writes?
>
> We should care. You should care. The people who read that shit vote for
> the people who decide on science budgets.
A sorry state of affairs. Does the politicking in the movie "Contact" sound
more or less real to you?
>They also elect school boards.
> If too many people discount science and its underlying epistemology, the
As a lot of them already do...
> cretinists and other superstitious types will win, because they have a
> simpler, more humanistic story to tell.
Good point, although I'd rather describe their story as simplistic and
exploring human limitations...
> > Gimme a break! What comes next, the intellectual reflections of
> > John Travolta and Morgan Fairchild?
>
> That may be the foundation for public policy re science, given default of
> the field by scientists.
Can somebody ask Charles Simonyi to endow a few more chairs in public
understanding of science?
Wundergeist
> They're invisible pink unicorns, dammit. Unicorns!
>
> No one would be silly enough to believe in invisible pink
> _leprachauns_.
No. Everybody knows invisible leprachauns are _blue_, not pink!
Wundergeist
> You have seen the Sun rise N number of times, and so you believe it.
Which is Bayesian, even starting with a flat prior on the probability
that the sun will rise (I think Euler did this a looooong time ago, but
I'm not sure).
Wundergeist
(I know you don't "believe" that: I'm just pointing out that
> what MvS is talking about is parrots, not scientists.)
She would't be able to tell the difference...
--
Jim Ferry
>
> Tony Gardner wrote:
>
> > The scientific method is justified by its results.
>
> "Ye shall know them by their fruits." - Christ
Okay, I see where you're going with this. One of the
characteristics of a good scientific theory is self-
consistency. On the one hand, "God is good." I think
you're alluding to anti-homosexual references in the
Bible. Or perhaps this statement of Christ's is pro-
homosexual? It's hard to tell without context.
> Sorry, couldn't resist :)
I empathize.
Carol
> In brief: a scientific theory cannot ever be _proven_ true; it can
only
> be shown to be consistent with all available data. However, a belief
> in the validity of a scientific theory cannot be placed on the same
> level of "faith" as theistic beliefs, since the former is supported by
> an inductively generalizable collection of objective observational
data
> while the latter is not.
Correct scientific philosophy re: Popper.
>
> For instance, I know that the Sun has risen every morning since I've
> been alive. I can thus generalize to claim with great confidence that
> it will rise tomorrow based on this data. I might even go as far as
> to say that it's a fact that the Sun will rise tomorrow, even though I
> can't know that for sure. While I don't know it for sure -- the jury
> isn't in yet, and there's no way of knowing that tonight the Sun might
> vanish -- my belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow is not on the same
> level of "faith" as, say, a belief that invisible pink leprechauns
exist.
> In the former case, there is a very large body of widely corroborated
> and objective observational evidence in support of that belief; in the
> latter there is not.
>
> While it may be true in a technical sense that I "have faith" that
the Sun
> will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with
certainty,
> in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this
kind of
> "faith" and theistic faith.
>
Correct. However, I was discussing the Big Bang theory as taught to
school children, as if it was proven. It has not been. It is one
theory among others, such as Hoyles steady-state universe. I find it
objectionable that one scientific paradigm or theory is allowed to
dominate public (not scientific, that is another issue) discourse.
School children are taught these paradigms in a dogmatic fashion: i.e.
the Big Bang happened, etc, etc... This of course short-circuits
public discussion on scientific theory, and creates severe culture
shock when these students go to college and find out that there is more
uncertainty in science than they have been presented with.
Hence: the Big Bang theory is being taught dogmatically in school
textbooks (or was at one point, when I was reading my nieces books), as
some would have Creationism as perceived by the Christian Right
taught.
Children are not taught to think, adults in the general public are
presented theories as facts (a la Discover magazine) (not the fault of
many scientists), and scientific discourse ends up suffering as a
consequence. Any dogma stifles inquiry.
--
Best regards,
Carol Ann
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
Carol
>
> Of course. Now Creationism, is that also a theory that is supported by
> observations ? No, it is an abandonment of reason. It is the
> intellectual equivalent of fourth and long; "I don't know how the
> universe came to be, but I know it must have been initiated by an all
> powerful being."
>
> --
> SeeYa !
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hello... Is this thing on ?
>
>
This is true. My point is simply that creationism and the big bang
theory are both being taught at the grade school level as dogma. Dogma
discourages thinking and scientific inquiry. Creationism as presented
by the fundamentalists would make inquiry into the beginning of the
universe heresy. The big bang theory when presented as dogma makes
anyone who thinks it may be incorrect into another type of heretic. No
scientific theory should be presented as dogma, but should be used as
stimulus to further inquiry, even at the grade school level.
I object to the failure of the educational system, and of us as
scientists, to teach the general public how to think about science, how
to question theories, and how to reason. Creationism as presented
would be an abandonment of reasoning.
Bob Silverman
nur...@vt.edu wrote:
> In article <382FA5FD...@math.missouri.edu>, Stephen Montgomery-
Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
> > Nathan Urban wrote:
>
> > > While it may be true in a technical sense that I "have faith"
that the Sun
> > > will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with
certainty,
> > > in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this
kind of
> > > "faith" and theistic faith.
>
as devoid
> > of reason as a faith that "invisible pink leprechauns exist."
>
> Really? And who are you to judge that you have more evidence or
greater
> reason in your belief than someone who believes in invisible pink
> leprechauns? Oh wait, let me guess: "So many people can't be wrong."
No. His beliefs are based upon evidence that can be reliably reproduced
and demonstrated to others.
--
Bob Silverman
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Bob Silverman
Carol <car...@scientist.com> wrote:
> This is true. My point is simply that creationism and the big bang
> theory are both being taught at the grade school level as dogma.
There is no point to your 'point' because EVERYTHING is taught
as dogma in grade school. Children at that level do not have
enough background nor the abstract reasoning ability to do otherwise.
To cite one example: The Big Bang. They do not have the math background
to understand why Hoyle's steady state theory not only isn't correct,
but CAN'T be correct. Even Hoyle, who refused to accept Big Bang, now
accepts it is true.
Dogma
> discourages thinking and scientific inquiry. Creationism as presented
> by the fundamentalists would make inquiry into the beginning of the
> universe heresy. The big bang theory when presented as dogma makes
> anyone who thinks it may be incorrect into another type of heretic.
No
> scientific theory should be presented as dogma, but should be used as
> stimulus to further inquiry, even at the grade school level.
On this we are agreed. But grade school children don't have the
background to delve into the reasons why Big Bang may or may not be
correct.
>
> I object to the failure of the educational system, and of us as
> scientists, to teach the general public how to think about science,
how
> to question theories, and how to reason.
My opinion is that most people do not have sufficient motivation to
take the time to learn what they must in order to be able to do
what you suggest. In fact, they do not take the time and generally
can't be bothered.
Bob Silverman
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
> I only read the post. "...she asks those who believe in the Big Bang
> theory how they support their belief. And she continues 'If you
cannot,
> welcome to the world of faith.'"
>
> She didn't say that Big Bang cosmology is a matter of faith. She said
> believing in the Big Bang is a matter of faith for those that trust
> respected experts rather than understanding the evidence. And she's
> right.
Yep!! But now the 'faith' is a belief that others (more knowledgeable
in a given subject area) know what they are doing. This is a different
kind of 'faith'. And it too is generally based on empirical evidence,
drawn from experience. We observe that learned people are usually
(but not always!) correct. (to cite *one* example: architects generally
design buildings that stay up. We therefore accept that their knowledge
of strength of materials, structural analysis, etc. is correct, even
though we personally have not studied those subjects. This is faith
in their expertise based upon our personal experience with the world).
Gregory L. Hansen
>Correct. However, I was discussing the Big Bang theory as taught to
>school children, as if it was proven. It has not been. It is one
>theory among others, such as Hoyles steady-state universe. I find it
>objectionable that one scientific paradigm or theory is allowed to
>dominate public (not scientific, that is another issue) discourse.
Hoyle's stead-state universe does not exaclty have equal standing with the
Big Bang in the scientific community. Some decisions have to be made
about what to teach the kids, and I'm not sure it's helpful to teach them
what amounts to fringe theories as if they were equally grounded and
equally prefered.
>School children are taught these paradigms in a dogmatic fashion: i.e.
>the Big Bang happened, etc, etc... This of course short-circuits
>public discussion on scientific theory, and creates severe culture
>shock when these students go to college and find out that there is more
>uncertainty in science than they have been presented with.
More emphasis should be placed on the process of science rather than the
results, I agree. But I don't think giving "equal time" to Hoyle's
universe would help much.
>consequence. Any dogma stifles inquiry.
On the other hand, it's not true that we don't know anything, and it's not
true that any theory is as good as another.
Phunda Mental
A question was posed to Christ, along the lines of
how we are to tell true believers from frauds: Christ's
answer was "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
The scientific method _is_ justified by its results, I whole
heartadly agree. And, for the religious, their faith is confirmed
by what it does for them in their personal lives.. making them
more compassionate, or what have you.
We have to keep in mind the fact that we are comparing two
different models here, and as such we can't reasonably ask
religion to meet science's requirements any more than we
can ask science to meet the requirements of religion.
When we do this, I think one will quickly realize that the
models are not all that different in the sense that they both
have very deeply held assumptions that are taken completely
on faith.
Gerry Quinn
>In article <80p1vr$bbm$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>
>> I only read the post. "...she asks those who believe in the Big Bang
>> theory how they support their belief. And she continues 'If you
>cannot,
>> welcome to the world of faith.'"
>>
>> She didn't say that Big Bang cosmology is a matter of faith. She said
>> believing in the Big Bang is a matter of faith for those that trust
>> respected experts rather than understanding the evidence. And she's
>> right.
>
>Yep!! But now the 'faith' is a belief that others (more knowledgeable
>in a given subject area) know what they are doing. This is a different
>kind of 'faith'. And it too is generally based on empirical evidence,
>drawn from experience. We observe that learned people are usually
>(but not always!) correct. (to cite *one* example: architects generally
>design buildings that stay up. We therefore accept that their knowledge
>of strength of materials, structural analysis, etc. is correct, even
>though we personally have not studied those subjects. This is faith
>in their expertise based upon our personal experience with the world).
>
Theologians are well-versed in their religions too - so what's your
point? A priest telling you 'what theologians think' is similar to a
teacher or TV presenter telling you 'what scientists think'. Many
people find their religion matches what the perceive of the world.
For most people, I think there really isn't a lot of difference between
the two kinds of faith. Indeed if pressed, many might find the Big Bang
less credible than some tenets of their religion.
- Gerry Quinn
Jim Carr
Jim Carr <j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
|
| In article <80nhu3$vbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
| Raimundo M Kovac <rko...@ric.edu> wrote:
| } to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
| } State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
| } belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
| } And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
| } So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
| } She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
|
| glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
| >Looks to me like she didn't ask how cosmologists justify the Big Bang.
| >She asked how you, Raimundo M Kovac, justify the Big Bang.
|
| No, she did not ask that.
|
| Read it again.
In article <80p1vr$bbm$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
>
>I only read the post. "...she asks those who believe in the Big Bang
>theory how they support their belief. And she continues 'If you cannot,
>welcome to the world of faith.'"
>
>She didn't say that Big Bang cosmology is a matter of faith. She said
>believing in the Big Bang is a matter of faith for those that trust
>respected experts rather than understanding the evidence. And she's
>right.
She is right about an irrelevant point, since those who _justify_ the
use of one of the Big Bang cosmologies do so based on observations,
not belief, and do not "believe in" some Big Bang theory. Thus her
question is not addressed to scientists or any others who might presently
be using, say, an inflation-based Big Bang cosmology as the best current
summary of the sequence of events in the early universe -- because those
people do not "believe in" the theory. They believe in _the_data_ and
in the practical utility of the scientific method for correlating such
data and making predictions about what future observations might give.
What she failed to say is that scientists do not accept the Big Bang
theory as a matter of faith, and this is a major omission in her essay.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Phunda Mental
> I guess you think the value of PI is purely a matter of blind faith,
> too. How many people have actually measured it? Can we be sure it hasn't
> changed lately?
>
> It is a very good tool for predicting results, though. So does science.
> No religious belief can do this.
The goal of science is to predict results. The goal of religion is to
give personal meaning to life.
Religion will never be able to predict events as good as science, and
science can never give human meaning to life.
Science can tell us HOW our universe was created, but it can never
tell us why. For most people that later question is far more important
than the former, and they choose their model accordingly.
.. onward..
You're not seriously suggesting that the certainty of the Big Bang (or ANY
scientific discovery or theory) has the same surety as mathematics, do you?
Pi can be calculated, you don't need to measure it. BUT I _could_ directly
measure the value of Pi if I chose to and get a value within the error
tolerance
of my experiment.
As a matter of fact, I've done this in order to explain to a younger cousin
where Pi came from.
Also, I am not claiming that I distrust science or even that I place science
and religion on equal ground -- I don't.
What I _DO_ claim is that if, like a child, I kept asking you 'Why?' all
your scientific claims and hoopla would come down to the same response
as any preacher or nut case: "because we simply believe IT" .. now, what
_IT_ actually IS may be different, but it will boil down to faith.
In the case of religion, IT is the existence of a god or supernatural force
or whatever.
In the case of science, IT will be the idea that the universe is ordered in
some way that makes experimental data obtained in a lab in New York
valid in California.
That is a huge article of faith in my book. I happen to believe it, but
that is not the point. Maybe you don't think to question such assumptions,
but I do.
Robert Templeton
news:pOYX3.351$o4....@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <80pjc5$dl5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bob Silverman <bo...@rsa.com>
wrote:
> >In article <80p1vr$bbm$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> > glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> theory how they support their belief. And she continues 'If you
> >cannot,
> >> welcome to the world of faith.'"
> >>
> >> She didn't say that Big Bang cosmology is a matter of faith. She said
> >> believing in the Big Bang is a matter of faith for those that trust
> >> respected experts rather than understanding the evidence. And she's
> >> right.
> >
> >in a given subject area) know what they are doing. This is a different
> >kind of 'faith'. And it too is generally based on empirical evidence,
> >drawn from experience. We observe that learned people are usually
> >(but not always!) correct. (to cite *one* example: architects generally
> >design buildings that stay up. We therefore accept that their knowledge
> >of strength of materials, structural analysis, etc. is correct, even
> >though we personally have not studied those subjects. This is faith
> >in their expertise based upon our personal experience with the world).
> >
>
> Theologians are well-versed in their religions too - so what's your
> point? A priest telling you 'what theologians think' is similar to a
> teacher or TV presenter telling you 'what scientists think'. Many
> people find their religion matches what the perceive of the world.
Yes, they are. But they aren't using their expertise to design
architecturally sound buildings, are they? Creationists are doing EXACTLY
this. They are using their knowledge of scripture to make (up) theories of
how the universe started without pertinent evidence and repeatable
experiments to correlate, whereas scientists are using gathered evidence
from observable phenomena to construct their theories on the same subject.
Creationists are free to make theories concerning the beginning of the
universe in context of their deeply held beliefs as long as they are not
held in the same esteem as those supported by observed data.
> For most people, I think there really isn't a lot of difference between
> the two kinds of faith. Indeed if pressed, many might find the Big Bang
> less credible than some tenets of their religion.
That is why this entire discourse is so pitiful. They haven't the first
insight into scientific knowledge and dispell it so readily.
Regards,
Robert Templeton
Paul J. Koeck
Stephen Montgomery-Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote in message
news:38301DB4...@math.missouri.edu...
> Nathan Urban wrote:
> >
> > > A person who believes in God (such as I do) does have a large amount
of
> > > evidence in his/her own life to support his/her belief. Typically
this
> > > is not the kind of evidence that would find its way into a scientific
> > > journal. Usually this evidence is highly personal, for example, "I
began
> > > to live my life according to the Bible, and my life immeasurably
improved."
> >
> > Which of course isn't even remotely evidence for the existence of God.
> > I'm sure you could come up with much better examples than that. _I_
> > could come up with better examples of that, and I'm not a theist.
> >
> > All that the above evidence "proves" is that living your life a certain
> > way can make your life better. It's an unjustifiable logical leap to
> > conclude from that the existence of God.
> >
>
> immeasurably, I cannot conclude conclusively that God exists.
> But an Occum's razor approach suggests that this is the simplest
> explanation.
Heh! Not close. Use of the "Razor" would suggest that the
simplest explanation is that you believe in the xian myth.
>
> I mean, perhaps all my senses delude me. Perhaps I am a piece
> of brain matter on a table, and all my experiences are fed
> nito me, and my life is pure illusion. Perhaps, perhaps not.
> But it makes sense to live life, accepting those experiences
> that go on around me as valid.
Yes it does. However, that does not address the validity of your
belief, only that you HAVE the belief.
>
> Otherwise I may as well reject everything.
Nonsense.
Dan Goodman
Can something invisible be pink? Maybe it can be invisible at will, and when
it is not invisible, it is pink? Any ideas?
Dan Goodman
John Hattan
>In article <80ofpl$po1$1...@crib.corepower.com>,
> nur...@vt.edu wrote:
>> In article <382FA5FD...@math.missouri.edu>, Stephen Montgomery-
>Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
>> > Nathan Urban wrote:
>>
>> > > While it may be true in a technical sense that I "have faith"
>that the Sun
>> > > will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with
>certainty,
>> > > in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this
>kind of
>> > > "faith" and theistic faith.
>>
>> > While belief in God does require faith, it is not a faith that is
>as devoid
>> > of reason as a faith that "invisible pink leprechauns exist."
>>
>> Really? And who are you to judge that you have more evidence or
>greater
>> reason in your belief than someone who believes in invisible pink
>> leprechauns? Oh wait, let me guess: "So many people can't be wrong."
>
>No. His beliefs are based upon evidence that can be reliably reproduced
>and demonstrated to others.
What evidence is that?
james d. hunter
>
> > In brief: a scientific theory cannot ever be _proven_ true; it can
> only
> > be shown to be consistent with all available data. However, a belief
> > in the validity of a scientific theory cannot be placed on the same
> > level of "faith" as theistic beliefs, since the former is supported by
> > an inductively generalizable collection of objective observational
> data
> > while the latter is not.
>
> Correct scientific philosophy re: Popper.
> >
> > For instance, I know that the Sun has risen every morning since I've
> > been alive. I can thus generalize to claim with great confidence that
> > it will rise tomorrow based on this data. I might even go as far as
> > to say that it's a fact that the Sun will rise tomorrow, even though I
> > can't know that for sure. While I don't know it for sure -- the jury
> > isn't in yet, and there's no way of knowing that tonight the Sun might
> > vanish -- my belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow is not on the same
> exist.
> > In the former case, there is a very large body of widely corroborated
> > and objective observational evidence in support of that belief; in the
> > latter there is not.
> >
> the Sun
> > will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with
> certainty,
> > in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this
> kind of
> > "faith" and theistic faith.
> >
> school children, as if it was proven. It has not been. It is one
> theory among others, such as Hoyles steady-state universe. I find it
> objectionable that one scientific paradigm or theory is allowed to
> dominate public (not scientific, that is another issue) discourse.
> the Big Bang happened, etc, etc... This of course short-circuits
> public discussion on scientific theory, and creates severe culture
> shock when these students go to college and find out that there is more
> uncertainty in science than they have been presented with.
The main problem with how it's taught in grade school, is that
neither the children nor the teachers know all that much about logic.
It doesn't make sense at all to talk about the Big Bang as an
"event that happened".
Lee K. Gleason
>> level of "faith" as, say, a belief that invisible pink leprechauns exist.
>
> it is not invisible, it is pink? Any ideas?
>
> Dan Goodman
>
>
Guess everyone here is too young to remember Fina, with Pflash!
They featured pink air at their service stations...those were the
days...
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
gle...@insync.net
RC
snip
>>
>This is true. My point is simply that creationism and the big bang
>discourages thinking and scientific inquiry. Creationism as presented
>by the fundamentalists would make inquiry into the beginning of the
>universe heresy. The big bang theory when presented as dogma makes
>anyone who thinks it may be incorrect into another type of heretic. No
>scientific theory should be presented as dogma, but should be used as
>stimulus to further inquiry, even at the grade school level.
>
Everyone knows there is a Universe - but what set of conditions could
have produced it? To think that all of a sudden, out of nothing, this
whole Universe was created into a steady state is preposterous. This is
what the steady state theory implies - a Universe which has every
particle placed in a precise location relative to all other particles.
The Big Bang model which implies that the Universe expanded from a point
of extremely high temperature and density is far more plausible and has
a lot of evidence in its favour too. So I think it is right. However we
still don't know exactly what produces the Big Bang as we understand it,
and I doubt that we will ever know.
>I object to the failure of the educational system, and of us as
>scientists, to teach the general public how to think about science, how
>would be an abandonment of reasoning.
>--
>Best regards,
>
>Carol Ann
--
Thinking caps on
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk/sciph.html
Reason
RC
Eric Gunnerson
news:38301DB4...@math.missouri.edu...
> Nathan Urban wrote:
> >
> > > A person who believes in God (such as I do) does have a large amount
of
> > > evidence in his/her own life to support his/her belief. Typically
this
> > > is not the kind of evidence that would find its way into a scientific
> > > journal. Usually this evidence is highly personal, for example, "I
began
> > > to live my life according to the Bible, and my life immeasurably
improved."
> >
> > Which of course isn't even remotely evidence for the existence of God.
> > I'm sure you could come up with much better examples than that. _I_
> > could come up with better examples of that, and I'm not a theist.
> >
> > All that the above evidence "proves" is that living your life a certain
> > way can make your life better. It's an unjustifiable logical leap to
> > conclude from that the existence of God.
> >
>
> If I live my life as if God exists, and that changes my life
> immeasurably, I cannot conclude conclusively that God exists.
> But an Occum's razor approach suggests that this is the simplest
> explanation.
Wow, that's really, really silly.
If you live your life as if God exists, you are presumably making some
changes to how you live your life.
Your statement merely boils down to "If I make changes in how I live my
life, and that changes my life immeasurably", which is tautological.
At best, you might be able to assert that *belief in* god is a good thing -
at least for you.
>
> I mean, perhaps all my senses delude me. Perhaps I am a piece
> of brain matter on a table, and all my experiences are fed
> nito me, and my life is pure illusion. Perhaps, perhaps not.
> But it makes sense to live life, accepting those experiences
> that go on around me as valid.
>
> Otherwise I may as well reject everything.
But your senses *do* delude you; everybody's senses delude them.
If our senses always gave us good information and we could always be
rational about our evaluation, then we wouldn't need the scientific method,
would we?
Andy Resnick
Phunda Mental wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Also, I am not claiming that I distrust science or even that I place science
>
> and religion on equal ground -- I don't.
>
> What I _DO_ claim is that if, like a child, I kept asking you 'Why?' all
> your scientific claims and hoopla would come down to the same response
> as any preacher or nut case: "because we simply believe IT" .. now, what
> _IT_ actually IS may be different, but it will boil down to faith.
>
> [snip]
You have forgotten another response, namely "I don't know". That response can
serve as a discriminant between an empirical discipline such as the sciences
from religion.
--
Andy Resnick, Ph.D.
Optical Physicist
Dynacs Engineering Corporation
Paul Wenthold
> In article <80pgke$bbr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Carol <car...@scientist.com>
> writes
> snip
> >>
> >This is true. My point is simply that creationism and the big bang
> >theory are both being taught at the grade school level as dogma. Dogma
> >discourages thinking and scientific inquiry. Creationism as presented
> >by the fundamentalists would make inquiry into the beginning of the
> >universe heresy. The big bang theory when presented as dogma makes
> >anyone who thinks it may be incorrect into another type of heretic. No
> >scientific theory should be presented as dogma, but should be used as
> >stimulus to further inquiry, even at the grade school level.
> >
> A scientific theory should be presented as dogma if it is right.
Agreed. This whole argument is as stupid as saying that
teaching atomic theory to gradeschoolers is bad because
it is taught as dogma.
Aside from the fact that it is usually taught _wrong_
to gradeschoolers (it is generally the Bohr model, but
what can you do when elementary teachers don't
usually take chemistry class), there is nothing wrong
with teaching young'uns science as factual. It will be
a long time before they start actually learning from
where things originate (generally senior level college)
paul
Alan Morgan
Dan Goodman <d...@fcbobDOTdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>> level of "faith" as, say, a belief that invisible pink leprechauns exist.
>
>Can something invisible be pink? Maybe it can be invisible at will, and when
>it is not invisible, it is pink? Any ideas?
If you have faith, it will make sense.
(Well, maybe not. But that's what we tell everyone)
Alan
dann...@here.com
wrote:
>To think that all of a sudden, out of nothing, this
>whole Universe was created into a steady state is preposterous.
True. But it is we who must have a "beginning." Ergo, not
preposterous if there wasn't one.
Dan.
Nathan Urban
> > While it may be true in a technical sense that I "have faith" that the Sun
> > will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with certainty,
> > in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this kind of
> > "faith" and theistic faith.
> Correct. However, I was discussing the Big Bang theory as taught to
> school children, as if it was proven. It has not been. It is one
> theory among others, such as Hoyles steady-state universe.
Pretty much all of the other alternatives that have so far been
raised have been disproven. While no theory may be proven, Big Bang
theories have a great deal of observational evidence in support of them.
Just like the "sun will rise tomorrow" theory. I'd say we have more
evidence in favor of the latter, of course, but it's not like there's
much more scientific doubt about the Big Bang right now.
> I find it
> objectionable that one scientific paradigm or theory is allowed to
> dominate public (not scientific, that is another issue) discourse.
Like it or not, some scientific paradigms or theories are enormously
more supported by evidence than their alternatives. Would you have us
teach steady-state theory along side Big Bang theory? Even the creators
of the steady-state theory (including Hoyle) abandoned it.
> School children are taught these paradigms in a dogmatic fashion: i.e.
> the Big Bang happened, etc, etc... This of course short-circuits
> public discussion on scientific theory,
Frankly speaking, most of the public isn't capable of determining whether
a given theory is well supported or not and hence public discussion
degenerates into armchair speculations fueled by a lack of understanding
of the theories involved -- as is amply demonstrated by these newsgroups.
> and creates severe culture
> shock when these students go to college and find out that there is more
> uncertainty in science than they have been presented with.
Personally I think that one would have to be extremely naive to take
science on faith, or anything else on faith for that metter.
> Hence: the Big Bang theory is being taught dogmatically in school
> textbooks (or was at one point, when I was reading my nieces books), as
> some would have Creationism as perceived by the Christian Right
> taught.
The two are not even remotely comparable. There is a great deal of
objectively verifiable observational evidence in favor of the former but
none for the latter. Next I suppose you would condemn geography teachers
for dogmatically asserting that France is a country that exists in Europe,
despite never having been there.
> Children are not taught to think,
This is pretty much a general fact in any discipline within the
educational system. In any case, children are really not prepared to
doubt things until they have some minimum understanding of the universe
around them. Once they are taught our best theories about how things
work and can understand what they mean, _then_ it is time to question
those theories. If you don't know anything, then you doubt everything
equally, because you don't know enough to know why some things are more
plausible than others.
> adults in the general public are
> presented theories as facts (a la Discover magazine)
I don't think you read the FAQ entry I cited.
> and scientific discourse ends up suffering as a consequence.
Does it?
Nathan Urban
> Phunda Mental wrote:
> > What I _DO_ claim is that if, like a child, I kept asking you 'Why?' all
> > your scientific claims and hoopla would come down to the same response
> > as any preacher or nut case: "because we simply believe IT" .. now, what
> > _IT_ actually IS may be different, but it will boil down to faith.
> You have forgotten another response, namely "I don't know". That response can
> serve as a discriminant between an empirical discipline such as the sciences
> from religion.
Indeed. While scientists can become very attached to their theories,
I don't know any who literally take theories as articles of faith.
I have not infrequently been asked, "How do we know [insert theory here]
is true?" My response is always along the lines of, "We can never prove
a theory true, and we can never know for sure if it's true, but there
are some models that support the evidence much better than the others
that have been proposed. We don't know any really can't know if they
are really true or `why' they're true; we simply choose to work with
the most accurate model we have at the time."
I "believe in" the Big Bang theory, for example, in the sense that
I think it's the best description of the universe yet found and it's
likely to be true. But I don't "believe in" the Big Bang theory in the
sense that I take its truth on faith.
Chris Hillman
On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Raimundo M Kovac wrote:
> Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She responds
> to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
> State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
> she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
> belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
> faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
> And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
> So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
> She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
Heh, anyone interested in Marilyn's dismal "credentials" as an
intellectual should read the reviews by mathematicians of her book on
Fermat's last theorem. She got just about everything wrong. Anyone
interested in why cosmologists believe the hot Big Bang model has been
observationally verified in dozens of independent ways should read
Peacock, Cosmological Physics.
Basically, Marilyn vos Savant doesn't know jackshit about science. But,
look, she writes for a magazine called Charade, right? She doesn't write
a science column, she writes entertaining nonsense. One can only hope that
the general reader finds her columns more amusing than instructive.
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
Chris Hillman
On 15 Nov 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> Her logic is flawless, a correct assessment of modern physics...
Ah, the lunatic fringe. Suffice it to say my assesment ("Marilyn vos
Savant doens't know jackshit about science") is pretty much the viewpoint
held by every scientist or mathematician I know.
Nathan Urban
> Nathan Urban wrote:
> > While it may be true in a technical sense that I "have faith" that the Sun
> > will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with certainty,
> > in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this kind of
> > "faith" and theistic faith.
> I disagree. While I would say that your faith in the Sun rising (and mine!)
> is certainly different than faith in pink leprechauns (to use your example)
> I would not say it is all that different than belief in a major world religion.
Why do you think it's different from leprechauns but similar to religion?
In any case, the two are quite different. Data about the Sun rising
is objective. It can be verified by anyone, it can be measured, etc.
Religious beliefs are subjective. I cannot experience someone else's
"personal religious reality"; if I could, then their reality would be
mine, and everyone would have the same religious beliefs.
> Just as you can point to a lifetime of watching the Sun rise as
> the basis for your faith,
I don't have faith. I recognize that the Sun might not rise tomorrow.
I assign it a sufficiently low likelihood that I don't plan my life
around the possibility.
> Now, certainly, there are differences here..
And they are huge differences. As you say:
> scientific criteria for
> evaluating evidence is different from the religious perspective of
> "evidence."
Enormously different.
Nathan Urban
> Nathan Urban wrote:
> > > A person who believes in God (such as I do) does have a large amount of
> > > evidence in his/her own life to support his/her belief. Typically this
> > > is not the kind of evidence that would find its way into a scientific
> > > journal. Usually this evidence is highly personal, for example, "I began
> > > to live my life according to the Bible, and my life immeasurably improved."
> > Which of course isn't even remotely evidence for the existence of God.
> > I'm sure you could come up with much better examples than that. _I_
> > could come up with better examples of that, and I'm not a theist.
> > All that the above evidence "proves" is that living your life a certain
> > way can make your life better. It's an unjustifiable logical leap to
> > conclude from that the existence of God.
> If I live my life as if God exists, and that changes my life
> immeasurably, I cannot conclude conclusively that God exists.
You can't even conclude logically that God exists.
> But an Occum's razor approach suggests that this is the simplest
> explanation.
That's a pretty amusing application of Occam's razor. Do you really think
that the necessity of postulating an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent,
etc. being is the _simplest_ explanation? Even simpler than "if I live
my life in a good way, it will improve"? Even in light of the fact that
other people have lived their lives in entirely different ways yet their
lives also changed immeasurably? Even in light of all the rest of the
arguments from my previous post that you had no answer to?
> I mean, perhaps all my senses delude me.
And what do you think of the senses of someone who experiences Allah,
or Brahma, or Buddha, or Ra, or Zeus in just as real a manner as you do?
Do you claim that yours is the only religion with adherents who feel
that their gods are real?
> Otherwise I may as well reject everything.
False dichotomy. It isn't a matter of believing in God or retreating
to solipsism. I know atheists who once were theists who claimed to
have experienced God just as strongly as you do. They came to believe
otherwise.
Nathan Urban
> In article <80ofpl$po1$1...@crib.corepower.com>,
> nur...@vt.edu wrote:
> > In article <382FA5FD...@math.missouri.edu>, Stephen Montgomery-
> Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
> > > While belief in God does require faith, it is not a faith that is as
> > > devoid of reason as a faith that "invisible pink leprechauns exist."
> > Really? And who are you to judge that you have more evidence or greater
> > reason in your belief than someone who believes in invisible pink
> > leprechauns? Oh wait, let me guess: "So many people can't be wrong."
> No. His beliefs are based upon evidence that can be reliably reproduced
> and demonstrated to others.
No, they aren't. They are based on faith.
Furthermore, the moment you can reliably reproduce his "personal reality
of God" in me, you've got a convert. (Hint: "You just have to BELIEVE"
isn't "reliable reproduction of evidence". It is a tautology. If I
believe in God, then I will.)
Mark Folsom
Dan Goodman <d...@fcbobDOTdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80pmv0$cnl$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > level of "faith" as, say, a belief that invisible pink leprechauns
exist.
>
> Can something invisible be pink? Maybe it can be invisible at will, and
when
> it is not invisible, it is pink? Any ideas?
It is on the same ontological level as the triple-omni god thing.
>
> Dan Goodman
>
Mark Folsom
Mark Folsom
news:383050B7...@yahoo.com...
> Jim Ferry wrote:
>
> > Phunda Mental wrote:
> > >
> > > Tony Gardner wrote:
> > >
> > > > The scientific method is justified by its results.
> > >
> > > "Ye shall know them by their fruits." - Christ
> >
> > Okay, I see where you're going with this. One of the
> > characteristics of a good scientific theory is self-
> > consistency. On the one hand, "God is good." I think
> > you're alluding to anti-homosexual references in the
> > Bible. Or perhaps this statement of Christ's is pro-
> > homosexual? It's hard to tell without context.
>
> A question was posed to Christ, along the lines of
> how we are to tell true believers from frauds: Christ's
> answer was "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
Like the fig tree he killed because it didn't give him edible fruit out of
season?
>
> The scientific method _is_ justified by its results, I whole
> heartadly agree. And, for the religious, their faith is confirmed
> by what it does for them in their personal lives.. making them
> more compassionate, or what have you.
The faith of the religious has been vastly altered by the success of
science. Smallpox inoculation was vehemently opposed by churchmen in the
19th century, even after its efficacy had been reliably shown. This is no
longer the case with most christians (Christian Scientists et al excepted).
The faith of (honest) creationist geologists that the Noachian Flood could
account for the stratigraphy of Earth's sediments was crushed by empirical
findings by the 1830's. The faith of Christians in the "demonic possession
theory of disease" was dissipated by a long line of scientific successes,
including the drastic reduction of cholera via sanitation measures,
reduction of post-operative infections by having doctors wash their hands
and instruments between operations and the near elimination of many diseases
by vaccination. Further, the same scriptures that you think make you more
compassionate now were once the justification for glibly and
self-righteously torturing and burning innocent little old ladies, based on
biblical injunctions against the non-existent crime of witchcraft.
>
> We have to keep in mind the fact that we are comparing two
> different models here, and as such we can't reasonably ask
> religion to meet science's requirements any more than we
> can ask science to meet the requirements of religion.
Religion will encroach on any area that it is not forcefully driven from.
Even now, religious types are trying to eliminate well established science
from public school curricula. Essentially all of the superstitious nonsense
we were taught that ignorant people believed during the Common Era has been
forcefully defended and promoted by the Christian Church, even to the point
of unlimited torture and brutal murder of those who professed to disagree
with it. This crap was only given up in the face of humiliating disproof of
Christian doctrine and the risk or reality of public ridicule. Even in
ignominious retreat, error was very seldom admitted.
>
> When we do this, I think one will quickly realize that the
> models are not all that different in the sense that they both
> have very deeply held assumptions that are taken completely
> on faith.
This is utter nonsense. Three centuries ago, the average life expectancy
was about 27 years. Now it is approaching eighty years. Three centuries
ago they prayed desperately as they helplessly watched a large plurality of
their children die of infectious diseases by the age of ten. The church
viciously persecuted those who actually began changing that state of affairs
by empirically studying medicine, just as they persecuted those who studied
physics. The hegemony of faith in matters easily studied empirically has
been so thoroughly beaten back by a tide of facts that it now holds sway
over a tiny fraction of the practical world. It doesn't deserve as much
sway as it retains. The church suppressed the use of methods other than
faith in studying the real world for a millennium and a half. It still
seems able to suppress the use of non-faith ways of thinking in the realm of
ethics and morality, to our continuing detriment.
The results acheived by science and the lack of results achieved by faith in
the areas where they have substantially contended could not be more stark.
The bible still says that god was afraid that men would build a tower that
could reach (the physical place called) heaven (among scads of other
laughable nonsense). Religious folk were not dissuaded from that belief
(and they really did believe it) by new study or revelations from faith.
The game is still a skunk and the score just keeps piling up.
Mark Folsom
Mark Folsom
wrote:
> >In article <80p1vr$bbm$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> > glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> theory how they support their belief. And she continues 'If you
> >cannot,
> >>
> >> She didn't say that Big Bang cosmology is a matter of faith. She said
> >> believing in the Big Bang is a matter of faith for those that trust
> >> respected experts rather than understanding the evidence. And she's
> >> right.
> >
> >Yep!! But now the 'faith' is a belief that others (more knowledgeable
> >in a given subject area) know what they are doing. This is a different
> >kind of 'faith'. And it too is generally based on empirical evidence,
> >drawn from experience. We observe that learned people are usually
> >(but not always!) correct. (to cite *one* example: architects generally
> >design buildings that stay up. We therefore accept that their knowledge
> >of strength of materials, structural analysis, etc. is correct, even
> >though we personally have not studied those subjects. This is faith
> >in their expertise based upon our personal experience with the world).
> >
>
> Theologians are well-versed in their religions too - so what's your
> point? A priest telling you 'what theologians think' is similar to a
> teacher or TV presenter telling you 'what scientists think'. Many
> people find their religion matches what the perceive of the world.
Theologians who were *very* well versed in scripture but untouched by modern
science believed and taught an enormous number of things that we now know to
be utter nonsense. They were not corrected by better theology, they were
corrected by the progress of science. Read Andrew White's book on The
Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.
>
> For most people, I think there really isn't a lot of difference between
> the two kinds of faith. Indeed if pressed, many might find the Big Bang
> less credible than some tenets of their religion.
That's quite sad, but not terribly helpful in getting at the truth of the
matter.
Mark Folsom
Mark Folsom
> To start with, I don't know how important the principle of falsifiability
is
> taken in science any more, I thought it was pretty damn important, but
some
> physics philosophers have told me that it has been superseded of late,
> although they didn't say by what.
Naive falsification has been superseded by a view that admits that
hypotheses are always tested in bundles. Your expectations about the
performance of your observing instruments are just as much in question when
you make an empirical observation that you hope bears on some particular
theory under study. Often the best you can say is that a particular
explanation of a set of observations is the most economical in light of past
experience and instrumental calibration procedures, but other explanations
are always possible. Thus falsification is never a clean cut in a
philosophical sense, though some (practically) absurd assumptions may be
required to defend alternative hypotheses.
>
> If a hypothesis is physics is falsifiable, this means that the physicist
> concerned admits the possibility he is wrong.
It really means that one can conceive of a way to that the hypothesis could
be demonstrated to be wrong. That it can be shown wrong at least in
principle.
> A theological hypothesis on
> the other hand does not admit the possibility of being wrong, so they are
> clearly entirely different concepts, to say that faith in science is the
> same as faith in religion is completely wrong, because of falsifiability.
In
> fact, there can be no disproof of the existence of god by virtue of the
fact
> that a believer can simply claim that god is above logic and its rules
don't
> apply. So a disproof of the existence of god is not only empirically
> impossible but logically impossible as well. So what makes a belief in any
> established god any more reasonable than my personal belief that our fates
> are controlled by a gigantic yellow fish smoking a joint whilst swimming
> (for more details see http://www.fcbob.demon.co.uk/gfx/bob.gif)?
>
> Secondly, science is not entirely faith, although it has to be a part of
it.
> First of all, you have to assume that your senses correspond to something
> that exists (see Descartes for more). This is a pretty damn big
assumption,
> but it's certainly one you're going to have to make if you want to make
any
> scientific progress.
You can just provisionally accept the inputs of your senses, until you have
a reason to reject some or all of them. I often find myself doubting some
particular *perceptions* and have to adopt an alternative hypothesis in
order to make events consistent.
> But it isn't faith all the way, once you have built up
> to a certain level, you can start doing some physics. Many years ago one
> such assumption was that the universe is Euclidean, now this assumption
has
> been dropped. Also, once we believed in the possibility of an absolute
frame
> of reference, again, this has been dropped, and we get relativity.
Gradually
> the assumptions are disappearing (obviously not all of them). For
instance,
> with your big bang example below, and extrapolating physical laws to Mars
> from Earth, this is not a matter of faith. With the mars example, we can
> actually send a lander there, and carry out experiments as we have done on
> Earth, and lo and behold, it seems the same laws apply, similarly we can
> carry out experiments in space. In the big bang example, we can make a
> model, and this can be proved wrong by predicting results and checking
them
> against the "facts", for instance, cosmic background radiation. I've gone
a
> bit off topic here, but basically this is why faith in religion is not
like
> faith in science.
>
> I rest my case.
>
> Dan Goodman
>
> PS: It is true however that most people who believe in science believe it
in
> much the same way that people who believe in god do. This isn't the point.
>
> > Cite me examples explaining how the Big Bang is based on direct
> > empirical evidence. Such empirical evidence would need to have
> > taken place DURING the Big Bang.
> >
> > All science is based on faith.
> >
> > If you conduct an experiment here on Earth, and drawing conclusions
> > about how physics works on Mars you are basing your ideas on faith.
> > Specifically, you have faith that the universe is consistent. You have
> > faith that the rules don't change from place to place. If you look
> > to past experimental work, you are assuming that the rules don't
> > change from moment to moment.
>
>
>
>
C. Cagle
> Have you seen Marilyn's column in today's Parade magazine? She responds
> to a letter asking her to comment on the infamous decision by the Kansas
> State Board of Education (on the teaching of evolution). At one point,
> she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
> belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
> faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
> And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
> So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
> She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
A response to her article might go like this:
Dear Ms. vos Savant,
Kudos to you for pointing out that much of what is held up as
'scientific' is, in fact, no such thing. Many scientists
aren't pleased to suppose that they can be classed with those they
openly disdain as people who base their beliefs on
'faith'. Here's a clip to bolster your assertion:
from: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/frontiers/sf066/sf066a04.htm
"DOWN WITH THE BIG BANG
We might have concocted the above title, but we didn't! Rather,
J. Maddox, the Editor of Nature, raised that red flag. To make things
even worse, he subtitled his editorial:
"Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big Bang is an
oversimple view of how the Universe began, and it is unlikely to
survive the decade ahead."
His philosophical objections to the Big Bang are powerful:
"For one thing, the implication is that there was an instant at which
time literally began and, so, by extension, an instant before which
there was no time. That in turn implies that even if the origin of the
Universe may be successfully supposed to lie in the Big Bang, the
origin of the Big Bang itself is not susceptible to discussion."
The Big Bang, Maddox says, is no more scientific than Biblical creation!
The scientific objections involve space, time, the curvature of space.
The Big Bang further fails at explaining quasars and the hidden mass of
the Universe. Maddox doubts that the Big Bang will survive the new data
to be provided by the Hubble telescope.
(Maddox, John; "Down with the Big Bang," Nature, 340: 425, 1989.)
From Science Frontiers #66, NOV-DEC 1989. © 1997 William R. Corliss"
Best Regards,
Charles S. Cagle, CEO
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR 97304
Lieven Marchand
> ...that you report her as talking about people who believe in something
> without being able to support it, and that you seem to equate this with
> science. (I know you don't "believe" that: I'm just pointing out that
> what MvS is talking about is parrots, not scientists.)
>
Trusting in scientific results is not parrotting. Unless you're a
Renaissance man, nobody has the time and the intellect to be competent
to keep up with all sorts of fields and to evaluate all the
evidence. So, if I read something in the Scientific American or
similar publications about fields I know very little about, I trust
(or believe if you want to call it that) the authors of that
piece. There seem to be few alternatives. I don't see why you or MvS
would compare this with faith, where the typical attitude is, don't
try to understand it, just believe it; or God works in mysterious
ways... The evidence is out there - only no one person is capable of
evaluating it all.
--
Lieven Marchand <m...@bewoner.dma.be>
If there are aliens, they play Go. -- Lasker
Dan Goodman
taken in science any more, I thought it was pretty damn important, but some
physics philosophers have told me that it has been superseded of late,
although they didn't say by what.
If a hypothesis is physics is falsifiable, this means that the physicist
concerned admits the possibility he is wrong. A theological hypothesis on
the other hand does not admit the possibility of being wrong, so they are
clearly entirely different concepts, to say that faith in science is the
same as faith in religion is completely wrong, because of falsifiability. In
fact, there can be no disproof of the existence of god by virtue of the fact
that a believer can simply claim that god is above logic and its rules don't
apply. So a disproof of the existence of god is not only empirically
impossible but logically impossible as well. So what makes a belief in any
established god any more reasonable than my personal belief that our fates
are controlled by a gigantic yellow fish smoking a joint whilst swimming
(for more details see http://www.fcbob.demon.co.uk/gfx/bob.gif)?
Secondly, science is not entirely faith, although it has to be a part of it.
First of all, you have to assume that your senses correspond to something
that exists (see Descartes for more). This is a pretty damn big assumption,
but it's certainly one you're going to have to make if you want to make any
scientific progress. But it isn't faith all the way, once you have built up
Tom Potter
Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
news:80q75f$588$1...@crib.corepower.com...
> I "believe in" the Big Bang theory, for example, in the sense that
> I think it's the best description of the universe yet found and it's
> likely to be true. But I don't "believe in" the Big Bang theory in
the
> sense that I take its truth on faith.
The fact of the matter is that people "believe" in many theories,
including the Big Bang, more on faith than meaningful correlations.
The degree to which we can quantize "truth"
is determined by auto-correlations and cross-correlations
performed on data, and upon the number of samples
used to perform the correlations. A crap shooter on a roll
has as many samples to base his "faith" on
than physics has for many theories, and note that in the cases
where many samples have been obtained, such as in
the Bell/Aspect experiments, all of these samples have
been taken over a short interval of time, and this does
not mean that Nature will always perform
one million years from today as she has today or yesterday.
Also note that a small sample of a possible infinite number
of cross-correlations are used to "confirm" theories.
The correlations that favor a theory are emphasized.
Note that the Inca's kept building canals
thinking that the rains would always come.
Even belief in the photon is based on faith because
there is NO way to determine what occurs
between cause and effect. One could just as easily postulate
that change is conveyed between cause and effect by angels.
--
Tom Potter http://jump.to/tp
Al Germaine
wrote:
(snip)
>she asks those who believe in the Big Bang theory how they support their
>belief. And she continues "If you cannot, welcome to the world of
>faith. You're accepting what you've been told by those you respect.
>And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks".
>So now science is based just on believing those you respect...
IMO, the gist of this trite argument is that, for the average lay
person, "belief" in scientific fact and theory comes second hand. That
is, they believe the claims of other people, namely, scientists. She
is simply saying, "...if you believe your sources, you are no
different from us who believe our sources..., why not believe with us
in the "higher" source...".
The fallacy of the comparison is that unlike in the case of
religious teachings, the lay person is _not_ asked to believe in
science on faith. Instead he is urged to investigate the foundations
of scientific theory. Admittedly, this may be a daunting task for most
ordinary people. Yet, even those individuals who, despite a reasonable
effort, may not themselves be able to grasp many scientific concepts,
at least they know someone who can. In other words, the verification
of science is ultimately accessible to all of humanity.
This is in stark contrast with religious belief which _must_ be
taken on faith since it is founded on the acts of God (or supernatural
beings) whose wisdom no human can ever truly know or understand, much
less verify for him/herself.
>She can be reached at mar...@parade.com, if you care to comment.
>
>RK
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Jim Carr
... reduced followups ...
In article <80pg9o$b65$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Carol <car...@scientist.com> wrote:
}
} > While it may be true in a technical sense that I "have faith" that the Sun
} > will rise tomorrow because I believe it without knowing it with certainty,
} > in a practical sense there is an enormous difference between this kind of
} > "faith" and theistic faith.
}
} Correct. However, I was discussing the Big Bang theory as taught to
} school children, as if it was proven. It has not been. It is one
} theory among others, such as Hoyles steady-state universe.
In article <80q6n0$55j$1...@crib.corepower.com>
nur...@vt.edu writes:
>
>Pretty much all of the other alternatives that have so far been
>raised have been disproven. While no theory may be proven, Big Bang
>theories have a great deal of observational evidence in support of them.
At least you use the plural, noting that there is not just one
"the Big Bang theory".
By the way, IIRC I was taught the steady state theory when I was
a school child. At minimum it was coequal to the alternatives.
Big deal. Sure did not stifle innovation.
>Just like the "sun will rise tomorrow" theory. I'd say we have more
>evidence in favor of the latter, of course, but it's not like there's
>much more scientific doubt about the Big Bang right now.
There are major loose ends, and the 'classic' Big Bang is not
in agreement with observation. You need something like 'inflation'
and undoubtedly some dark matter, so if you can't find dark matter
or LIGO finds something odd, things may change -- again.
} School children are taught these paradigms in a dogmatic fashion: i.e.
} the Big Bang happened, etc, etc... This of course short-circuits
} public discussion on scientific theory,
>Frankly speaking, most of the public isn't capable of determining whether
>a given theory is well supported or not and hence public discussion
>degenerates into armchair speculations fueled by a lack of understanding
>of the theories involved -- as is amply demonstrated by these newsgroups.
My objection is the assumption that what is taught in elementary
school somehow affects what adults discuss. If your science knowledge
is limited to that level, you won't have the basis for any comprehension
of, say, what one reads in Science News.
} and creates severe culture
} shock when these students go to college and find out that there is more
} uncertainty in science than they have been presented with.
>Personally I think that one would have to be extremely naive to take
>science on faith, or anything else on faith for that metter.
Besides, I have it on good authority from a person who teaches
first-year biology that the real culture shock for some students
is not in the physics or chemistry classroom (they have actually
heard a lot about that, even if it is of mixed quality), it is
when they learn for the first time what is actually known about
biology, particularly genetics.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Al Germaine
(snip)
>
> By the way, IIRC I was taught the steady state theory when I was
> a school child. At minimum it was coequal to the alternatives.
> Big deal. Sure did not stifle innovation.
I was taught even more ancient "theories". Critics of science have
a point when the say that too often poorly supported theories have
been presented as fact. This was more true a few decades ago than it
is today. We actually have the critics to thank for holding
scientists' feet to the fire.
ATG
C. Cagle
Huber <mhu...@orie.cornell.com> wrote:
> It often appears that Marylin Vos Savant lacks the time to seriously
> think about her answers, or even to look up the meanings of the
> words she uses. Faith is one of those words that has several different
> meanings, and in her answer she is confusing two very separate ideas.
Wrong. She's not confused, you are.
> With respect to belief in the Big Bang, faith refers to trust built over
> time in the scientific community. The average person isn't just believing
> a scientist on a lark, but because of the products that scientists
> have brought into our lives over the years. The toaster, the
> telephone, all of these are evidence that science works.
I find it amusing when scientists are taken to task for silly belief
systems that their supporters (and often scientists themselves) often
begin ranting about the technology which has emerged in the world. In
the rant they lay all of modern technology out and present it as if it
were the gift of science to humanity. Indeed, nearly all technology
is produced by the tweak and fiddle method which happens to be the
'scientific' method. But most astronomers or physicists had nothing to
do with the development of the fundamental aspects of the technology
that they use everyday in their life. Instead, we owe thanks to
inventors and tinkerers and people who were motivated to make a smart
buck here and there. Shall we praise scientists for inventing high
speed cigarette rolling machines the products of which have taken away
some loved one or acquaintenance of nearly all of us? Shall we praise
science for the invention of mustard gas which caused WWI soldiers, in
horrible anguish, to cough up bits of their lungs before they died?
The list is very long about what scientists have provided to mankind
that is not as quite as benign as toasters and telephones. Science
(when referring to the 'scientific method' of experiment and gathering
data and forming hypothesis and more experiments, etc.) does indeed
work. But much of what is hailed today as 'scientific' is not really
'scientific' at all. The fact that a huge majority of the so-called
'scientific community' hasn't the wit to discern which is which is one
of the saddest things of all.
> When someone lends greater weight to Big Bang theory because
> they heard about it on PBS rather than what they have heard
> on a ministerial show, it is because they have seen that
> scientists, more often then not, are right in the end in their
> statements concerning the physical world.
Pure unadulterated nonsense. What a true believer you are and you
don't even understand how much of what you believe is bilge. A small
example from history: Most of the scientific community swallowed the
BCS (Bardeen, Cooper, Schreiffer) theory of superconductivity for
nearly two decades after they won a Nobel prize in 1972 for its
concoction in the late 1950's. But there are printed comments from top
researchers in the field two years before they won the prize who knew
the theory was nonsense. But without that theory there would have been
a vacuum. Scientists comforted themselves with a theory that some knew
was flat wrong. Now, today, top researchers are admitting that the BCS
theory was bunk. (Some still haven't got the message and are still
preaching it.).
You witlessly emote the opinion that "scientists, more often then not,
are right in the end in their statements concerning the physical
world." Nothing could be further from the truth but closer to hero
worship. You need to get a real life as a printer or something and
stay away from commenting about which you are so utterly and slavishly
ignorant.
> The other notion of faith is the theological one, where personal
> revelation, acceptance of God's will, etc., come into play. Here
> there is not a need for repeatable experiments or any other
> element that results in trust built between humans. The issue
> is with trust in the supernatural, a completely different bailiwick.
Without understanding the nature of faith you suppose yourself an
expert on it. Amusing.
> One meaning of faith is to believe in something or trust
> something (or someone). Another meaning is acceptance of
> the will of God. Yes, people trust scientists, they believe them
> based on their track record, they have faith in them. But that
> is wholely different from the faith in God that is the hallmark
> of creationism, and it is at best disingenuous to try to
> conflate the two meanings.
You are utterly and perhaps hopelessly confused. The writer of Hebrews
gave a decent working definition when he wrote: Heb 11:1 (KJV) "Now
faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen." He actually goes on to expose 'faith' as integral to the
creation of the substance of the universe itself. The Messiah
disdained men for a lack of that creative power and posed the question
of Luke 18:8 ".... Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he
find faith on the earth?" Expressing, perhaps, the idea that he
doubted that men would actually be equipped with faith when he
returned. The writer of Hebrews makes an on point statement concerning
the importance of faith when he wrote: Heb 11:6 (KJV) "But without
faith {it is} impossible to please {him}: for he that cometh to God
must believe that he is, and {that} he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him." So, we see that the Messiah comprehended that
upon His return that since the world (in general) would be lacking
faith that they would be unable to please God. This doesn't bode well
for those who lack faith and, of course, bodes absolutely ill for
people such as yourself who don't even really have a clue as to its
nature or how one goes about obtaining such a quality. No small
wonder that you disdain the concept and quality and function of faith
for it is a certainty that without this thing that you have fancied
yourself an expert concerning (faith) ,but which you are not at all
knowledgeable about, you will be unable to stand before God.
And talk about conflation! If you knew a bit more about the doctrine
of God and less about the doctrines of men perhaps you wouldn't be so
confused.
You have supposed that 'scientists' somehow are worthy of trust. You
base that worthiness upon the idea that they are somehow disposed to be
correct concerning their interpretation of the physical world. They
might be right in a host of realms all of which are things which are
related to physics but when they start making assertions about, say,
the nature of the universe or matter or the nature of charge or gravity
or the origin of matter (all of which are things the truly wise
physicists clam up about because they know they haven't a clue) then
they have entered a realm of speculation. The difference between the
wise and foolish is that the wise know where that line which separates
facts from speculations lies. The foolish drive over it without a care
because they are not even aware it exists. Scientists are really
divided into these two camps and the foolish among them cannot become
wise as long as they are ignorant of their foolishness while the wise
are wise precisely because they are not ignorant of their ignorance.
In supposing 'scientists' are worthy of trust about fundamental issues
such as those mentioned above you show which camp you are in.
When you are ignorant concerning the nature and function of faith
(which you have already demonstrated by what you have written) you are
ignorant of the purpose of your own existence. You should, perhaps,
stay off of the internet and have the decency to never post where
intelligent people can see what you have to say again.
Charles Cagle
Gerry Quinn
>RC wrote:
>Agreed. This whole argument is as stupid as saying that
>teaching atomic theory to gradeschoolers is bad because
>it is taught as dogma.
>
>Aside from the fact that it is usually taught _wrong_
>to gradeschoolers (it is generally the Bohr model, but
>what can you do when elementary teachers don't
>usually take chemistry class), there is nothing wrong
>with teaching young'uns science as factual. It will be
>a long time before they start actually learning from
>where things originate (generally senior level college)
>
>paul
I feel much the same as regards teaching them religion as dogma. They
will have time enough to develop critical faculties (not that most will
bother).
- Gerry Quinn
Paul Wenthold
But the constitution prohibits public schools from teaching
any particular religion as being true. Therefore, they can't
teach "religion as dogma" because that would be an
establishment of that religion.
paul
Dan Goodman
> inventors and tinkerers and people who were motivated to make a smart
> buck here and there.
Rubbish, try and imagine (for instance) satellite television without general
relativity, no tinkerer has ever or will ever put anything in space. That's
just one example of many.
> Shall we praise scientists for inventing high
> speed cigarette rolling machines the products of which have taken away
> some loved one or acquaintenance of nearly all of us? Shall we praise
> science for the invention of mustard gas which caused WWI soldiers, in
> horrible anguish, to cough up bits of their lungs before they died?
The crusade? The inquisition? Jihads? Fatwas? Need I say more?
> You have supposed that 'scientists' somehow are worthy of trust. You
> base that worthiness upon the idea that they are somehow disposed to be
> correct concerning their interpretation of the physical world. They
> might be right in a host of realms all of which are things which are
> related to physics but when they start making assertions about, say,
> the nature of the universe or matter or the nature of charge or gravity
> or the origin of matter (all of which are things the truly wise
> physicists clam up about because they know they haven't a clue) then
> they have entered a realm of speculation.
Maybe you would have said the same to those who supposed the Earth wasn't
flat in the days when it was generally accepted that it was flat.
Furthermore, does religion help explain the origin of the universe better
than science? To say god created the universe just raises the question of
the origin of god. If you won't attempt to answer this with the reply that
god just exists without cause, then why not apply the same to the universe
itself, it just exists without cause. Positing the existence of god merely
adds a redundant level of explanation, one that isn't based on anything
other than storytelling.
Dan Goodman
Gerry Quinn
>> that they use everyday in their life. Instead, we owe thanks to
>> inventors and tinkerers and people who were motivated to make a smart
>> buck here and there.
>
>relativity, no tinkerer has ever or will ever put anything in space. That's
>just one example of many.
>
One example of many stupid ones, I assume. Satellite TV without general
relativity wouldn't be a problem. You would do just fine based on
Newtonian gravity.
- Gerry Quinn
tonyp
Al Germaine <germ...@nospam.citymail.lacc.cc.ca.us> wrote
> a point when the say that too often poorly supported theories have
> been presented as fact. This was more true a few decades ago than it
> is today. We actually have the critics to thank for holding
> scientists' feet to the fire.
It's my impression, however, that "the critics" responsible for
discrediting scientific theories are usually other scientists, championing
different theories -- not critics of science itself.
It is true, of course, that individual science teachers often present
current theory as eternal dogma, but that is an example of bad pedagogy,
not bad science. If we could afford to pay for real scientists to teach
science in the public schools, this problem would be reduced.
It would also help if the major "news" magazines, Time and Newsweek in
particular, would quit running quasi-religious cover stories every so
often. I am grateful to be living at a time when the world is placid
enough for this kind of stuff to make the cover, but that's the best I can
say about it.
--
Tony Prentakis
Consumer of time, occupier of space, producer of Z-stages
"How can I know what I think until I hear what I have to say?"
Kevin D. Quitt
>... a belief
>in the validity of a scientific theory cannot be placed on the same
>level of "faith" as theistic beliefs, since the former is supported by
>an inductively generalizable collection of objective observational data
>while the latter is not.
The FAQ is wrong - belief is belief. Scientific Theories are not "believed",
they are *accepted*, and only for as long as there is nothing better.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
wetboy
< snip >
: Aside from the fact that it is usually taught _wrong_
: to gradeschoolers (it is generally the Bohr model, but
: what can you do when elementary teachers don't
: usually take chemistry class), there is nothing wrong
: with teaching young'uns science as factual.
Disagree here. What's wrong with teaching kids that scientific
theories are provisional -- that they're the best we know, and
that we accept them until something better comes along --
that sometimes the old theories have to be replaced (e.g.
Ptolemy), or sometimes they just have to be modified (e.g.
Newton). (Tangential thought here: This attitude is entirely
different from religion. In Western religions at least, the
concept of "switching religions when a better one comes along"
is not generally accepted.)
-- Wetboy
Kevin D. Quitt
<ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
>While belief in God does require faith, it is not a faith that is as devoid
>of reason as a faith that "invisible pink leprechauns exist."
As devoid of "reason", yes. As devoid of "reasons", no.
>A person who believes in God (such as I do) does have a large amount of
>evidence in his/her own life to support his/her belief. Typically this
>is not the kind of evidence that would find its way into a scientific
>journal. Usually this evidence is highly personal, for example, "I began
>to live my life according to the Bible, and my life immeasurably improved."
That's why this isn't evidence. They are ex post facto observations, misuse or
misunderstanding of statistics, and subjective.
>This notion of evidence does not fit the standard scientific mold.
I'm glad we agree.
>But
>we should not reject this kind of evidence - at least to the extent that
>we should invalidate the reasonableness of those who hold these beliefs.
So this evidence is useless for Science but OK for belief? You don't see the
problem here?
>A very large number of people believe in God, and a very large number
>believe that they have had some personal experience of God. For many
>(including myself), this experience is as real as the experience of seeing
>the sun rise each morning. For us to change our mind and decide that
>God no longer exists would be as ludicrous to us as deciding that the
>sun will not rise tomorrow. Our experience does not bear this out.
Personal experience, especially of this type, is near to meaningless when it
comes to being evidence.
>The pursuit of God is a search that man has been on for several millennia.
>Whereas the scientific method has only been around for a few centuries.
>By this reckoning, the scientific method is a recent fad in philosophical
>thinking.
Actually, the pursuit of a multiple Gods is much older. Tell me why you don't
believe in multiple Gods and you'll know why I don't believe on one God.
>Perhaps our belief in the scientific method is in itself a
>great act of faith.
Belief in the Scientific Method is an act of faith. Scientists do not believe
in the Scientific Method. They accept it, and will continue to accept it until
something better comes along.
>Indeed, I would be interested in how people justify the scientific method
>(perhaps they could adequately explain it first).
The justification is simple: no other process generates better results on a
continuing basis.
The Scientific Method is not "The Search For Truth"; it is more a "rejection of
that which is known to be false". Observations are made, explanations are
proffered. Such explanations that are framed such that they can be shown to be
false (if they are) are called Hypotheses. Hypotheses do not just explain what
has observer; they inherently make predictions.
Experiments are crafted to test these predictions and the Hypothesis is
accepted, modified, or rejected accordingly. The same tests and others are done
by different groups of people to avoid subjective judgement and observation -
those precise things Belief is based on.
When the Hypothesis withstands all challenges, it becomes a Theory. While
mathematics can have Laws that are provably true, the real world cannot offer
such strong proof. A 'Theory' is an idea that is as close to 'Truth' as we can
get. Theories may require modification as new evidence comes forth, and it is
entirely possible for a Theory to be demolished (although extremely unlikely
once it has reached Theory status).
Kevin D. Quitt
>Correct. However, I was discussing the Big Bang theory as taught to
>school children, as if it was proven. It has not been. It is one
>theory among others, such as Hoyles steady-state universe.
You need to learn the difference between the lay meaning of "theory" and the
scientific meaning of "Theory". If you knew the difference, you would not be
able to say "It is one theory among others".
>I find it
>objectionable that one scientific paradigm or theory is allowed to
>dominate public (not scientific, that is another issue) discourse.
>School children are taught these paradigms in a dogmatic fashion: i.e.
>the Big Bang happened, etc, etc...
I agree that they should not be taught as TRUTH, but rather as "our best
understanding". The problem is how you distinguish, in a child's mind, the
difference between that and "our best guess", which leads to the idea that it's
only a guess and anybody's guess is as good?
But what you are discussing is not a failure of science, but that of our
educational system, and as such is not on-topic for this thread.
>Any dogma stifles inquiry.
Indeed.
_
Kevin "My Karma ran over your Dogma" Quitt
Kevin D. Quitt
>All science is based on faith.
You have failed to make the distinction between "faith" and "a working
assumption". The latter is easily discarded.
Tom Potter
Paul Wenthold <p...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:38315536...@purdue.edu...
> But the constitution prohibits public schools from teaching
> any particular religion as being true. Therefore, they can't
> teach "religion as dogma" because that would be an
> establishment of that religion.
The Founding Fathers were concerned with
keeping the government out of the mind control business,
not with eliminating ethics and morality from government.
Which of the following mind control systems
do you think the government should have a monopoly,
( Or large position ) in, TV, Internet, newspapers, radio, education,
religion, "free" books, communications, censorship, etc?
Rate each of these mind control systems
in terms of how much control the government has over it,
and how much money per person is spent by the government on it.
The greatest danger to a free society is to allow
government employees to co-opt some system of mind control.
Although the American Founding Fathers tried hard to
separate their new government from ALL mind control systems,
and almost all other nations have followed the Jefferson model,
( "All men are created equal..." ), they failed. Government employees
in most nations have co-opted the educational systems and use
them to promote their selfish interests. Public education systems
inhibit EDUCATION and FREEDOM far more than any other
system on mind control. Most education of value comes from other
sources, TV, books, trade magazines, trade shows, seminars,
on the job training, peers, family, etc.
Separation of government and ALL mind control systems
should be the goal of a free society, not separation of government
and ( religion, TV, radio, newspapers, Internet, etc. ).
This whole idea that man is NOT a slave to the state
is a relativity new idea. It probably won't last.
Eventually, self-serving government employees will co-opt
some system of mind control, ( Education? ) and use it, first
to discredit other systems of mind control ( TV, Internet, free
speech, etc. ),
and then to elevate themselves and their families.
Kevin D. Quitt
<jdegoesR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Therefore, it is obvious you must draw an absurd distinction between
>"accepting" things and "believing" them,
It is you making the absurd distinction. I make a very real distinction between
the two. There are many things I accept and very few I believe. Those things I
accept I can as easily reject when something better comes along. There is no
emotional investment in accepting an idea.
Kevin D. Quitt
about religion. Dis-believers try to prove it is false, but belief and
disbelief are the same thing - just opposite directions.
Franz Lemmermeyer
> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:35:52 GMT, Carol <car...@scientist.com> wrote:
> >Correct. However, I was discussing the Big Bang theory as taught to
> >school children, as if it was proven. It has not been. It is one
> >theory among others, such as Hoyles steady-state universe.
>
> You need to learn the difference between the lay meaning of "theory" and the
> scientific meaning of "Theory". If you knew the difference, you would not be
> able to say "It is one theory among others".
It _is_ one theory (or rather a whole class of them) among others.
I really don't see your point.
franz
Robert Templeton
> In article <80rlg1$afk$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, "Dan Goodman"
<d...@fcbobDOTdemon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> inventors and tinkerers and people who were motivated to make a smart
> >> buck here and there.
> >
general
> >relativity, no tinkerer has ever or will ever put anything in space.
That's
> >just one example of many.
> >
>
> One example of many stupid ones, I assume. Satellite TV without general
> relativity wouldn't be a problem. You would do just fine based on
> Newtonian gravity.
>
> - Gerry Quinn
Not altogether true. The gravitational differential will cause a certain
amount of temporal drift, albeit nearly negligible, due to time dilation
differences between the surface uplink/downlinks and the orbitting
satellite. Also remember that we are dealing with electromagnetic signals
which fall under the jurisdiction of Einstein's Relativity to some extent.
They will be bent slightly within the gravitation field so that targetting
will need to adjusted to compensate. These are all minor concerns, but are
definitely taken into consideration, at least during design phases.
Dan Goodman
> relativity wouldn't be a problem. You would do just fine based on
> Newtonian gravity.
Well maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I was told that you needed GR for
communications satellites, but personally I know nothing about it. How about
another example then, advanced materials to make cars safer which are
researched using Scanning Tunneling Microscope which relies on Quantum
Theory. I think this one is true, but again, I don't know. Further examples
might be computers (do chip manafacturers have to take into account quantum
effects now?) or a whole host of others. Anyway, this is beside the point,
Newton was hardly one of the "inventors and tinkerers and people who were
motivated to make a smart buck here and there", he was a physicist. Ditto
Maxwell and others who we presumably wouldn't have TV without
(electromagnetism). The point is scientific theory generally leads to
applications after a while, when it is fully understood, whereas religion
does not. Granted a lot of modern physics which is popularised is still
tentative, especially the astrophysics stuff.
Dan Goodman