Probably a wise move.
Really, like what?
No there is nothing 'shameful' about backing out. It is however a bit shameful to throw in that you think SR is 'inconclusive' and THEN say, "I just can't be bothered".
The True Origin of The Universe?
- Thread starter dumbest man on earth
- Start date
One thing is that I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs, in different degrees of certainty, about different things. But I'm not absolutely sure of anything and of many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit, if I can't figure it out, then I go onto something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me.
[Richard Feynman,During an interview in BBC's Horizon program (1981)]
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.[Richard Feynman]
P.S.
why is the rum gone ?
[Richard Feynman,During an interview in BBC's Horizon program (1981)]
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.[Richard Feynman]
P.S.
why is the rum gone ?
so, hopping on the bandwagon of all theories are incorrect nonsense, is " thinking with your own head " ?
and yet you think you are intelligent, but yet, never touches things that need intelligence, this speaks volumes.
do you even understand the goal of mainstream is to connect relativity and quantum physics ?
do you realize the issue is gravity ?
do you even listen to your self?
or do you have such a massive problem with the brain function that you can not even understand your own comments?
i'm going with the second question.
"Heliocentric Universe??....."!!!
pebcak!!
pebcak!!
Good question. Will the real humbleteleskop stand up?
My question is, who tinted your lenses? Some evangelical Christian group?
That's not the point at all. "Mainstream" specifically means "the majority of experts". And the "alternative theories" are legitimate scientific theories supported by "a minority of experts". We can equally define "mainstream theory" as "theory supported by a preponderance of the evidence" and "alternative theory" as "theory supported by some evidence, and controverted by other evidence". Thus, Big Bang theory and evolution are "mainstream theories". There is no "alternative theory" among biologists to evolution (the are merely alternatives to natural selection, gradualism, etc.) There is no alternative to Big Bang theory, insofar as the generalities (as an explanation of the expanding universe discovered by Hubble)--there are merely alternatives to various specifics (like multiverse theory, the Big Crunch, and so on.)
The point is this: the argument between "mainstream" and "alternative" theories belongs exclusively inside the purview of competent experts. It's utterly dishonest for Christian evangelicals to pretend that they are in a position to question "the mainstream", and esp. to pretend they are posing "alternative theory" when in fact all they are doing is justifying their ridiculous adherence to the principle that myth must be read literally. But it's sinister. And it completely invalidates their entire belief system, since it claims to be based on (among other things) scrupulous honesty.
Therefore when you attack people for following "divine mainstream" etc. the baloney alarm starts going off. And my little "flesh colored Jesus that glows in the dark" jumps off the shelf and starts crashing little cymbals together like the Energizer Bunny.
So what's really going on? Why in the world would you begin with all of the cynical attacks on science. Who put you up to that?
What you actually said, which caught my attention, was:
Who said so? Why did they say it? And why do you believe them? What's gotten in to you since you were in school? Surely you were exposed to well written text books (at a minimum) chock full of facts that were carefully proof read by peer review (editors at least). So what happened since then to plant all this cynicism in your mind?
Furthermore, is "1+1=2" the same as "orthodox dogma"? It sounds to me like you don't understand that in science you're generally either right or wrong. And since "Orthodox" means "right" it's more than ironic that you'd use the term, esp. since it primarily applies to religious doctrine, not knowledge of the physical world.
Just sayin.
Yes I disagree. Peer review is nothing more than an audit, the same as might be done by accountants on a tax return. It's an objective attack on the material presented, to test its soft spots, and to be sure the language is precise and not misleading. Obviously any gross errors will pop out in a peer review. But few prospective authors will have those kind of defects in their papers, or the underlying work, since they've already been "peer reviewed" by the university examination process.
And I disagree that peer review has "rejected correct theories". You would have to cite some examples. I'm certain you'd have to scramble to come up with even one. But so what? Science is a work in progress. Stuff changes all the time. It's just that significant changes are very rare. Kepler's analysis of Tycho's charts, indicating that the motion of the planets followed some natural law, was one of those changes, as was Newton's discovery of a force that was proportional to the masses of the bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, was the necessary "cause" of the motion Kepler discovered. And that was fine for roughly 200 years until Einstein--another rare exception to "rare exceptional change"--showed that the "cause" was that space and time warp in the presence of matter, in a relative sense. Of course this didn't make Newton obsolete, it just expanded the definition of what Newton discovered to include cases that would be of importance in our time.
In short, you have a nutty idea of what peer review is. Very few papers subjected to peer review are expounding any theory at all. Most are reporting some highly esoteric detail that only makes sense to a specialized minority of experts. You would know that if you'd ever bothered to subscribe to any of the journals in question. Can you even name any? I doubt it. So you see the point is this: why are you attacking something that you have no personal knowledge of? That's why I've asked you if you were programmed against science by Christian evangelicals. No other organization is squawking against science as loud as they are. And I can't imagine how you would have come up with this idea by yourself, say, years after sitting through a high school class in science.
So what's really going on?
Ooops! That's the second time I have done that.
Off with my head, on with a pumpkin!
But no actual damage done as most do understand what was meant.
But many thanks dmoe, for keeping me on the straight and narrow...much appreciated.
I would get the other [pebcak] concern attended to though...maybe some counselling would not go astray?
These conditions can lead to manic depression and such conditions and do get worse over time.
Seriously, just trying to help.
Last edited:
The amusing thing about some of our God botherers, is that they appear to be closet supporters of that scenario, and do their best to present a facade of not accepting it, but at the same time, claiming it is a scientific possibility.
That's pretty close to the mark.
I've said it a few times now, if anyone has a problem with the logic and sensibility of Abiogenesis and Evolution, I would love to see a viable scientific alternative.
But guess what? There aint none!
What a great analogy AId!!
More words of logic and wisdom, and essentially what I have been saying to all our God bothering clan [open and closet types] Alternative hypothesis pushers and conspiracy adherents every time they start their delusional rants.
I say that peer review are science-fearing priests who got their job exactly for their devotion to orthodox dogma and loyalty to alien shape-shifting reptilian overlords, because it must be true, in some ways at least. It's a humorous allegorical exaggeration to illustrate how blind fate in "science gods" is just as shortsighted as blind fate in whatever other gods.
Except it isn't true in the greater scheme of things.
Scientific theories arise through continious observational and experimental data and the knowledge of giants of the present and past....We have moved on from the God Galileo, we have moved from the God Newton, we have moved on from the God Einstein....but still maintain the logical supported data from those Gods that still match data.
And that surely is far better then blindly following the God of delusions, and the God of "think for myself" and the God of pseudoscience, and wearing those questionable qualities like a badge of honour, when in fact it is a badge of Ignorance.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
But you forget that for religionists, ignorance IS honor. They are told (ostensibly by their "gods" but actually by their priests and parents) that unreasoned faith is more trustworthy than reason.
As I have noted many times, reasoned faith is acceptable in daily life, if not in science. My dog has been unwaveringly faithful to me for ten years, so it is reasonable for me to have faith that he will continue to be so.
Fraggle Rocker, you state that "for religionists, ignorance IS honor", and that "They are told...that unreasoned faith is more trustworthy than reason.".
F.R., do your statements apply only to Theistic religionists or do they apply Scientific religionists also?
You also seem to have strong beliefs about unreasoned faith and reasoned faith, and give an example of your own reasonable...faith based on your own observance of your dog's past behavior.
The Poster that you "quoted" became a Member of SciForums less than 11 months ago.
In that short span of time, that Poster has explicitly shown an unwavering faithfulness in his behavior toward any and all of the other Members of SciForums that, in any way, shape or form, do not share in his Scientific religionists unreasoned faith(?) or reasoned faith(?) in his Science Gods.
He has firmly established that anything that they Post on this Forum his response will be to :
1.) - malign it by claiming their(there?!) ignorance of his Science Gods Facts...
2.) - ignore it by claiming it to be part of some "Fantasy Agenda" of his creation...
3.) - refuse to read it by claiming it to be "Pedant" or "Pedantic"...
4.) - fail to consider it by claiming it to be "Alternative" or "Supporting Alternative"...
5.) - reject it out of hand by claiming it to be "Theist"...
6.) - deem it "unacceptable" by claiming it to be "Sourced from someone or somewhere" that does not share in his Scientific religionists Faith in his Science Gods...
7.) - disregard it by claiming it to be the result of "Tall Poppy Syndrome" or "Delusions of Grandeur"...
8.) - blatantly dismiss it due to a seeming unwavering faithfulness in his own "Assumptive" or "Presumptive" or "Inferring" or "Mis-Characterizing" abilities from a cursory scan of their(there!?) Posted content...
etc., etc., etc...
Fraggle Rocker, would it be reasonable for all the Members of SciForums to have faith that he will continue to explicitly exhibit his unwavering religious faithfulness to his Science Gods?
Amen. He's really obsessed about it, and it doesn't even concern him.
humbleteleskop, although I am not the only Member on SciForums to be aware of his behavior, I do not, in any way, shape or form, suffer a belief in any "Deities" - be they Theistic or Scientific!!
Ergo, no need to state "Amen" - at least not for my benefit.
That being said, the fact that you have only been a Member for a little over a month now, and the fact that you already Objectively see his behavior for what it, in all actuality, is, speaks volumes about the apparently limited perceptive abilities of too many Members of this Forum.
humbleteleskop, have you read the OP of this Thread? I, dmoe, started this Thread - Post #1 - and from his Post #2, he has been doing...whatever it is he does...that steers nearly all the Threads that he participates in into nothing more than him proselytizing his own personal...whatever it is...that he seems to so thoroughly enjoy...doing...on SciForums!
I have read quite a few of your Posts, humbleteleskop, and I hope you do not mind if I state that you seem to honestly consider what you Post - Prior to Posting!
For that reason, and the honest content of your Posts, I appreciate and enjoy your Posts.
Welcome to SciForums.
And you are surely far away from being the dumbest man on Earth. I have to say though, I would find your posts more enjoyable if you replaced that formal, "bureaucratically official" and robotic format with more relaxed and casual tone, with something more human, more humor.
My Bad, humbleteleskop!!
This is the First and only Forum that I Post on. Prior to this, I spent too many years writing technical papers, debriefing reports and such.
The "dumbest", in my moniker, has nothing to do with cognitive abilities. Long, uninteresting story relating to the plethora of congenital anomalies that came from being birthed in the mid to-late 1950's.
I do have the ability to be humorous, but humor can be quite misinterpreted on this Forum.
I once stated to another Member : I am not as think as you dumb I am!
It was quickly met with a Warning from an Administrator to "Quit Trolling". So...
At any rate, when I participate in Threads that "allow" me to be relaxed and more "human", I do my darnedest to get the most out of that "holiday in the sun", so to speak.
May I inquire again, humbleteleskop, have you read my OP in this Thread?
If so, do you have any thoughts relating to the original Topic, or question posed at the end, of it?
kx000
Valued Senior Member
For us to really progress and have fun we have to believe the big things and put our best scientific effort forth. Knowledge is just waiting for us.
Ignoring the rest of your grudge driven nonsense, you obviously do not approach things in a scientific manner.
Science is an evidence backed objective discipline based on experiments, observations, Interpretations, logic and sensibility.
Science also entails some faith based logic positions and also encompasses subjective opinions which are encouched and governed by the scientific method and peer review.
I hope that helps.