Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paul defourneaux, Mar 29, 2000.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Actually, on a chronological scale, Kuhn succeeds Popper, and so do most of his ideas. The falsification of science (as Popper first described it in... i think 1934) is no longer possible in Kuhn's vision of scientific revolution, simply because, according to Kuhn, there's no common frame of reference (paradigm) to talk in. There's a 30-year difference between the two visions so I'd say that Popper is the old news Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
I totally agree with the ultimate and complete theory of everything, it's obvious that this is what science is aiming at. The problem I have here is that this goal cannot be achieved. I am glad you dropped the word "approximation" here (even though it's in a difference context) since that's exactly what will destroy our theory of everything. For everything we see in the world and universe, we create a mathematical model that describes it up to an accuracy that we choose. But you inevitably introduce errors in this model (eg. harmonic approximation in classical mechanics, statistical approximations in statistical mechanics, etc) so one day or another, whether it is tomorrow in in 300 years, we will have the ability to see past these approximations (because the detecting equipment has gone supersensitive) and then we will have to adjust the theory once again (ironically, this looks a lot like Popper's falsification of theories Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). Every theory that makes approximations is doomed to fail one day.
Ofcourse, for now we're stuck with only a couple of Cray's to do the heavy math so we are obliged to do apprxoimations; otherwise we couldn't even solve a simple problem like a mass on a spring (anharmonic effects etc).
I agree that falsificationism is one of the most common ways to advance in science, but I think that Popper is a bit naive. Kuhn puts it more realistically, saying that there are many other ways in which science can evolve (falsificationism being one of them).
Personally I think of scientific revolution as a "Popper-Kuhn" mix, in which falsificationism leads to paradigm shifts, which is more the Kuhn vision then. (see <A HREF="http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2ULLCA34LT&mscssid=QDTTN3Q521S92LPW001PQUW780MK23K6&sourceid=00266206460639244575&bfdate=04%2D13%2D2000+07%3A 41%3A27&srefer=&isbn=0226458083"> here </A> for the Amazon link to Kuhn's book Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!).
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The next we're going to hear is that christianity promotes brotherhood and is open for all other kinds of religion ? Or have your ears been shut too violently by Jesus ?
(Sidenote: I do not support Paul and his Urantia book in this matter, but I have to admit that he has proven himself to be more open minded than yourself. I think you should really listen to him and perhaps even get some more insight in your own religious book, the bible, for I cannot believe that you completely can comprehend a philosphical book like that in one lifetime).
(Sidenote to sidenote: I do not believe in reincarnation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!... So don't start interpretting the "one lifetime" thingy in some wierd way Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!).
I don't know who to adresse this to.I cetainly did not mean start this type of discourse between people.I just feel that there are some people out there who think there is a more indepth explaination of who we are and where we came from,other than the bible.And to state that this book[urantia]is nonsense goes in both directions.The bible is like a fairy tale explaination my parents used to tell me when I would ask where babies come from.In turn I would ask who told the stork dad screwed mom?To those who feel this way the Urantia book will help you,to those who don't all I can say is I tried.
Machiaventa Speaks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As this is informally addressed I will informally respond.
Its nice to see you have a heart that wishes to offer hope to people that are searching for answers, even though I may not agree with your answer. And at the risk of sounding like Lori Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "the bible explains all", you've just got to look for it in there. Getting to know the God of the Bible takes some effort, He doesn't want spoilt rotten children who demand to be spoon fed. In so doing it builds character, the Fathers character and determination.
Don't stress about the way this discussion has headed, you'll find that it's common place around here for it to take that path. If you post up here you'll need to be ready to substantiate what you say and believe, and sometimes things get hot.
Anyway I hope you could see the message I was trying to get across in my posts. I try not to take a personal attack approach but inevitably sometimes do. If I have offended you I am sorry, if the truth of what I believe has spoken to you then I do not apologise for that.
(I like the way your name refers to the biblical one who promoted the bible all over the antique world Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
I hope you know you are just exchanging one book of revelation with an other. In this respect I don't really follow Crisp's opinion that you are more open minded then Tony.
This stand is the main reason why there is such a thing as hate and war. The strange thing is that everybody is horrified by violence and every religion preaches peace and understanding at one point or an other but at the same time is blind for its own intolerance against other views. It is a terrible conclusion to come to because faith touches the very basics of our own thinking but we should get rid of it or at the very least question it !
This is not a plead for atheism (although I do sympathise that view) but for a critical evaluation of intolerance.
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
I couldn't have put it any better. However Plato, both you and I (and many others) are also following our own book(s) of revelation (called "Physics"), that do no hold the complete truth alltogether. I am glad Paul acknowledged that even the book of Urantia he praises so much, doesn't hold the truth.
As far as I see it, there's no right or wrong in this discussion. The point we are debating about is how acurately our books of revelation describe the truth/reality. (Hrm, this last phrase starts to worry me since my own words are starting to sound Urantian.... Think I'll panic Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). Personally I'll ofcourse say that all the books on my (and your) bookshelf do that to a very good accuracy, but I am pretty sure that both Paul and Tony will disagree. Why will they disagree ? Probably because their belief in their versions of the truth is as large (or larger) than our belief in the mathematics that underly all physics. Does this mean the maths are right ? I dunno, but I think they're doing a d*mn good job at it (forgive me my swearing Tony).
I hope you are aware of the irony of this statement. On one side you try to convince us all to see the light and become god's children (as he surely wants), but on the otherside you tell us that he rejects all people that are too lazy to read between the lines. Doesn't this somewhat contradict the "you are all welcome in heaven" statement ? Or is this a new form of the "you have to work to get in heaven" ? If I remember history correctly, about 400 to 500 years ago people were forced to work hard to survive, giving as much as they could as donations to the church just to get in heaven. Is it because this no longer applies nowadays that we now actually have to read the bible ? (I'm afraid you'll also have to read between these lines to get what I mean Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!).
Without going too philosophic here, I would furthermore like to add that we should praise the lord for our laziness! (sarcasm intended). Isn't it because of laziness that the great inventions of our time have been created ? Why did we invent the wheel ? Probably not because it's so much fun to see it turning, but to take four of those, hammer a board to it and put stuff on it to push it around (chariot). Why did we invent the bicycle ? Because we love walking all the way to the grocery store ?
I hope you'll see that I can go on forever with this. Laziness is, next to the more dominant scientific curiosity, one of the main reasons we have science; so please don't ask us to work, that would be against the very nature of science itself Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
You know we aren't as far apart as you think .The fingerprints of God are everywhere.Mathematics and physics are just one of the many tools to show us where He left them and explain how He left them.Have you ever read fingerprints of God?In one chapter the explain that if you take the cracks that form in ice naturally.How ever random the seem,when there location and frequency is entered in to a computer digitaly.The give the blue print for a tree or many other living things.I am not sure if I explained this quite accuratly,what I am trying to say is that there is nothing random in the universe at all.Any book,be it physics or the bible,or even the urantia book has some good to be gleaned from it.God put nothing here at our disposal to be wasted,He gave us the ability to see the many clues to his existance.We all must come to him in our own way,be it science(which I love)or phylosophy,or religion,He just wants you to use what works for you and does no harm to any one or thing.Thinking ill of someone or something is just as bad as doing ill to them.So always keep and open mind and one day you will see we where on the same road after all.As for h2o,we both know that water has many sates of being,sometimes it is high humidity and sometimes it just rains no matter what.
Paul/Machiaventa Speaks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! h2o Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
[This message has been edited by paul defourneaux (edited April 15, 2000).]
Indeed, but this is also the point where our roads split! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Aha, but now you're assuming that I am actually looking for (a) god through science. I am looking for the truth (what makes things happen, how does nature work?), but you might very well argue that I am denying that this truth is god (then he surely hides in a very good way). On the other hand, science seems to more and more disprove the existance of a higher being, by being more and more able to explain the fine mechanism nature works in.
I am aware that this is a very dangerious opinion I am presenting here (since this will likely reopen the debate of science vs. religion one more time), but I think this is one of the major points we have different opinions about. When you show me god, you will say "this is the big guy, accept his existance" and my first reaction will be "prove that its him". Even when you've done so I will still try to explain how he works as yet another part of nature we're exploring.
Don't get me wrong, I am not attacking your belief in god; I am very happy it works out for you. But I am afraid you're dealing with a rebel here who simply cannot stop at the point where you say "go no further" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
At one time not to long ago I thought as you did.No ones explaination could supercede what science had taught me.Having a M.S. in chemistry made it very hard to except any explaination other than scientific ones.Yet when I read this book(urantia)and found that it integrated science,phylosophy,and spirituality in one,all things came toghether.I have found that science is more of a plausible explaination of how God made this universe and all things in it.For many years I was an agnostic,believing that all religions used there knowledge to control people.For Knowledge is power,and the control of knowledge is absolute power.When science began to explain Gods working nature to the masses religion lost much of it's control.It created a group of people who knew more than the religionists who had been in control.Where would we be now if the catholics and there buddies had not kept us in the dark ages for half a millenia?Please do not ever stop searching for your personal truth,for in the end it will bring to the right conclusion,for all of us must come to God in our own way.Remember there are no atheist on the battlefield.I enjoy reading your responses and hearing different points of view.The Urantia book was published 100 yrs. ahead of it time in order to promogulate teachers and other people to dissemminate it's teachings.By the year 2055,if we are still alive in this dimension we will see a great movement spawned by this book and the foundation.I sincerly hope that you are around to see it,for it will be the beginning of this world's entry into the world of light and life.Ghandi said"if we are luky enough to live so long most of our sins will fade into non-existence.
Paul/Machiaventa Speaks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do you realize that you sound exactly like those who believe the bible to be the answer to everything? Giving up christianity (or any other religion) for this book is simply replacing one subjective dream with another.
Also, your athiest/battlefield comment demonstrates that you don't really know what an athiest is. True athiests do not believe in gods, so no matter what situation they are in, they can't simply jump tracks and start believing. The weak-willed people you are describing are imposters, who say they don't believe but secretly, 'deep down', actually believe in some sort of deity. The belief needs to exist for one to be able to embrace it.
fyrestar, what do you mean "jump tracks and start believeing"? Do you mean believeing in something based on faith? Of course you do! Whatever your stance on anything is, you need to take a whole hell of a lot on faith! If a leading expert of astronomy tells you that the universe is expanding, you have faith that his of her measurements are coorect, and that he or she is not outright lying to you. It all boils down to that anyway. Now faith is not in any way a bad thing, it is extremely necessary in life. However, many people take things solely on blind faith, apart from any evidence or body of substantiated knowledge. This is where I part ways with Paul and his Urantia philosophies. They are not only unsubstantiated, but also very unrealistic. How can anyone make a claim like "our current estimations at the size (which is a determiner of the age) of the universe are off by 17,000,000%"? This is astounding! You must agree that without proper evidence on which to base such a claim, no one in their right mind can take you seriously without defying the principles of reason. That's no good. I have started reading the Urania book, and I find the thing to be very dull and filled with sci-fi mumbo-jumbo that can in no way be proven. So I must wonder, where is it that the authpr received his information regarding the wild claims he makes regarding the universe? Certainly not from any existing body of evidence. This faith is blind. Blind faith is unnacceptable to me. I veiw faith as having two sub-catagories. The first is blind faith, which is based off of no evidence, or is contrary to existing evidence. Urantia is this, both lacking in any proof and contrary to existing evidence. The second kind of faith is a mere extension of what is known to be true. We as people can never know everything, so we will always have to make faith-based assumptoins about certain things. As long as we know something about what we are placing our faith in, and our faith meshes with known truth, it is not blind, but very reasonable. Urantia is not this. Its claims do not go hand in hand with any body of truth. Oops! I must reject it therefore on principles of mere reason, something which is in reach of anyone so long as they are mature enough to be objective.
I totally respect your scepticism!I do not ask you to take this book on blind faith alone.At www.urantia.org you will find a link on the history of the book and where it actually came from.And you are right there are some things that are hard to swallow.The book was not written by people as we know it,it was dictated to people here,yet the authors are what you would call extraterrestrials.I first doubted this book and it's writings yet as time passed the truth manifested itself to me in ways I can't readily explain.The fact that I have gotten you to read it at all is a success to me.Days ,months,or even years from now you will say"damn I'm glad i found that book"because in time it will all be as clear to you as it is to me.Do me a favor keep reading it if only to find reasons for disproving or disallowing it.And keep telling that idiot Loone what he needs to hear.
Paul?machiaventa Speaks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
[This message has been edited by paul defourneaux (edited April 16, 2000).]
thanks for not putting up a huge fight. And yes, I will keep telling Loone to behave! I wish he didn't give faith such a bad rapport with people who think that faith has no place among itellectualism.
Separate names with a comma.