Sir Isaac Newton

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by sscully, Jul 31, 2014.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    ….And then there are those who simply see science as a highly successful way of making predictive models of the physical world, based on repeatable observation.

    Many of these people object to attempts to introduce ideas into science that are not based on this principle and get annoyed when this is attempted.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Yes, they do. And that's SciForum in a nutshell.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    My point is that, as understandably difficult as not getting annoyed can be, they must because not to do so is to descend into what either is or very much resembles flaming, trolling or arrogant intolerance - since these are so often manifest by annoyed members who are 'more scientific than thou'.

    A true scientist keeps a cool head always and tirelessly explains to someone attempting to unorthodox ideas why they cannot be. He does not insinuate that the would-be innovator is gay, or that the renowned scientist that he is basing his new perspective on is gay or just another crazed bed-wetting 'god-botherer'. That's essentially what occurred here. And so 'science' (by your definition) was done a disservice and lost face. It is regrettable. I hope the guilty parties can learn from the excessive enthusiasm they exhibited here.

    It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Then we'll have to differ on this point, Arne. It is vital to the integrity of science to avoid it being contaminated with unscientific……….stuff. The history of the emergence of science after the Renaissance is one of gradually and painfully shaking off ideas from alchemy, astrology and religion that are not grounded in objective (i.e. repeatable) observational evidence. It took over a century. In science, quality control is essential. There is no room for bullshit, wishful thinking or flights of fancy, unless they are corroborated by observation.

    If you talk ballocks, expect a rough ride.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    I don't know that we disagree. The OP here seemed sincere in his thought process. All he started out doing was recommending (whatver that is, didn't much interest me, and I've forgotten). But why shouldn't he be alloed t recommend a book - by Isaac Newton no less? Then certain parties jumped all over him, berated him and made accusations that probably weren't true, according to some sane posters later, but even if they were...

    If you and I do disagree, then at least we are doing it civilly and without ranting, barbs and baseless accusations. I have recently had such conversations with Kittamaru and Paddoboy. We may disagree but none of us acts like babies. Disagree with whoever you like, but do it civilly and be sure to objectively and with proof. I don't see much objectivity or proof here sometimes, not even from the 'scientists'.

    I don't believe I have to keep saying this same thing over and over to educated adults. I hope those certain parties will catch on soon.
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    deleted as unnecessarily controversial
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, he didn't.

    That's where the split comes in. He did not seem sincere, in any relevant sense. He looked exactly like another one of the apparently endless supply of People of the Book, fundamentalists trying to open some kind of window in scientific and otherwise responsible discussion to preach through. The apparent motive is to be framed by the kind of respect that responsible and scientific discussion has earned, while preaching. He had no interest whatsoever, for example, in any explanation for Newton's mystical beliefs and inquiries that cast doubt on their relevance to scientific thought today. He had no interest in the context or basis of Newton's work, or its subsequent evaluation by non-believers. Sscully accepted only one basis for discussing Newton's mystical writings, and that was accepting them as valid and expanding on their implications.

    And that has turned out to be the case. Aside from the uncommon (but not unprecedented) wrinkle of having a ToE of his own based on his fundie beliefs, he's right on the rail, just as it appeared from the OP, and despite his attempts to conceal that fact.

    He was fundamentally dishonest in his approach here. Sincerity of belief does not justify that.

    I don't like being lied to by fundies, OK?

    Oh, bullshit.

    from the OP:
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2014
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    You're right about most of this, except assuming scully is a fundamentalist Christian. He isn't: he's more of a wisdom-of-the-ancients mystical type, I think. Alchemy is all mixed up with biblical prophecy in his theory, if you care to read it in the other section. This is not remotely like the sort of thing an extreme Protestant believes. So I have to agree with Arne that the horrible term "fundy" does not seem to apply in this case.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I have been using the term "fundy" (thanks for that spelling) to refer to the entire body of such believers, rather than restricting it to a faction of Protestant Christians. Is that wrong?

    Bible-literal Catholics, Muslims who correct geology to validate the Noah's Ark story and deny evolutionary theory on Koranic grounds, the lot of them. Anybody who comes on this forum telling us about how he used to be an atheist and believe in science, and then reason forced him to become an agnostic, and now he's an open minded agnostic who has discovered this wonderful book that investigates the Biblical proof of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ - - hello?
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    You mistake an exorcism with bullying. Quite the opposite is true. The troll is the assailant, and the undercover religious troll is the worst kind.

    But expression is an art. I think you place too much stock in the face value of the words you copied here as opposed to the motivation for putting them together in the particular way I did and in light of the remarks I was responding to. The purpose is to hold pathological behavior in check, otherwise it grows like a cancer. In any case you shouldn't let my seemingly strident speech get to you. It's all for a good cause.

    I don't cater to trolls. Whether they are actually fundamentalists or this is just a game they are playing, who knows? But I prefer to give them a run for their money rather than wimp out and mollycoddle them. I am also aware of their coordinated attacks on sites like this. The coordination between Arnie and Steve fits an established modus operandi. Based on the dozens of trolls I have helped extricate thus far, it turns out that my instincts are pretty good. And that is, to rely on best evidence (Exhibit A: the markers from the pathology checklist. )

    For all I know Steve is a Satanist. Steve decided how he wants us to interpret his motives. I am following his lead.

    No, I held him responsible for what he actually said. First he said he was an agnostic. Then he went directly into extolling the virtues of fundamentalism, to include the inerrancy of the literally interpreted Bible, and the regard of the Catholic Church as the Antichrist. It was couched as an innocent lifelong admiration of Newton, but this is contradicted in the science threads by
    directed attacks on Newton's physics.

    Fraggle said the same thing. Is it possible that neither of you were paying attention to what Steve actually said?

    Either that or this explains your own reaction. As I said above, for all I know Steve is a Satanist. But none of that matters, since this is about trolling.
    Not just any others. One is a demonstrated troll and the other is an admitted troll. And yes they are flaming. My defenses of science and academia are not on the low ground, nor are my attacks on trolls remotely equivalent to flaming. And yes the tolls are flaming me. It's what they do best. That and completely ignoring all of the content I have posted, which I will note still stands despite all of these diversionary tactics.
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    There are almost no bible-literal Catholics, as Catholicism is based on authoritative teaching by the priesthood as to how the bible should be interpreted, i.e. it is not all taken literally and never has been. There are some throwbacks who deny evolution, it is true, and ditto Muslims and Jews. But even if you call all of them "fundies", our friend scully is a different sort of crank. But a crank, he most certainly is.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I think you are wrong about that. 1) Where I live, the entire Christmas story in the Gospels, taken literally - including the virgin birth - is part of Catholic belief. 2) Most of the world's Christians are Catholic, and a large fraction of the world's Christians deny at least some aspects of evolutionary theory on Biblical grounds - you do the arithmetic.
    All Biblical literalism works like that - there's always some authority telling them what it says. The Pope has a bigger crowd than the local Protestant sectarian, but so?

    They are a clear and dominant majority of Muslims, a probable majority of Catholics, and a substantial fraction of believing Jews.

    Really? He sounds the same. He's going to The Book for his physical reality, he's posting his conversion timeline and his fundy-stereotypical view of "atheists" and "science", he's evangelizing via some fgaux-scientific authority or another, etc. Are fundiess invulnerable to crankdom of the ToE variety? Otherwise how is he not a fundy?
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    OK. If you want to be deliberately obtuse on the subject of religious belief, I do not have the energy to argue with you.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I plead guilty.
    I certainly have faith that in the course of time, science will solve the problems you have mentioned, just as they have solved many other problems, and continue to solve them.
    They do that by a combination of methods...Standing on the shoulders of giants, research, Imagination, Innovation, Application, Optimism, and always ready to discard what isn't matching observations and experimental results.

    "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: "Ye must have faith."
    Max Planck:

    And let's say you were a crew member on Captain James Cook's ship the Endeavour in the late 1700's.
    And someone told you that in a couple of hundred years, you would be able to converse with anyone else, in any part of the world, over a thing called a wire.....that you would be able to converse with anyone, anywhere via a magical form of waves in the atmosphere and no wire needed.....that you could watch realistic movable pictures of people coming out of a magical box....that we would have flying machines to take you anywhere in the world.

    The things you so sarcastically deride are not going to be easy to achieve...
    and although on face value, they may appear to violate the laws of physics, we now know [ with regards to FTL travel] that there are methods of getting around that problem.
    God, any supernatural deity is beyond and in contradiction to our known physical laws.
    I again, have faith that given time, we can achieve such things.
  17. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    The only of Sir Isaac Newton's I have ever read blew me away. It was calculus:

    The equations balance.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page