To the first point, I put quotes around "spontaneous" to emphasise the fact that I do not have any insight into how this could happen, not because I don't think there is a "cause". We know spacetime streches since it can now be observed and measured, as to the cause of the streching we run the streching backwards and postulate a big-bang, the big-bang predicts residule heat of a specific wave length and we find it! That is very roughly my understanding of the current state of cosmology.
Someone has postulated (I heard it from the "sidewalk astronomer"), that spacetime streching is actually specatime being "created" everywhere at once and a proportional amount of sub-atomic particles are also "created" (I belive current theory postulates "spontaneous" quantum creation of matter/anti-matter pairs). Now I chose this example because I truly have heard no rebuttals nor can I think of one, it is given scant attention and it contradicts the status-quo. ie: A scientific inquiry if you will.
The reason I was using an example in the first place was to show that, because the accepted big-bang theory just keeps looking better and better (plus the fact I cannot think of a testfor "my" theory), I must bow to conventional scientific wisdom in order to remain honest to myself (it is not about "authority" as someone has suggested, it's about humility and finite spare time). However if there is a cosmologigst amoung us who can rebut the idea (or concive a cause and/or test) I would love to hear it.
The second point was intended as humour, notably absent from this thread.
Disclaimer: My partner firmly belives in a Christian style God and "angels" once saved her life, furthermore I belive it happened to her as she describes it. However I don't accept her explaination and don't have much evidence for mine. I still prefer to think that the universe "just is", and when the traffic miraculously parts in front of me I look to my partner and say, "the universe is working for me today".
To genuinely "trust in God" (IMHO) is to realise that the desire to externalise "control" is ultimately futile so it is best to avoid doing it, other than for physical "self-defense" against mankinds tendency to want to bash each others brains in for "control". Somewhere around 40 I managed to realise this without the need to insert god, but if god works for you then stick to it and let nobody tell you that you personal answer to "why are we here" is wrong. Either way peolpe on both sides of the fence feel a great weight has been lifted when they "see the light". My partner and I also share the same feeling of "religious awe" when looking up at the heavens or watching a sunset and we both agree it's all mostly hydrogen, ignorance and arrogance.
If they offered a similar reward, I would tend to agree. Without the incentive it boils down to a journalist shouting "prove it", however I do understand he is attempting to build a case in a legalistic fashion and this article is just the first installment.
BTW: Sagan and Randi are my two favorite skeptics, I have followed both with interest since the early '80s. These people are what skeptisism is all about and should be mandatory reading for all journalists!
IANAP so do not have the time, background or inclination to research your pet theory. My post was responding to your use of blatantly false sterotyping to support said pet theory.
If you don't want responses that object to your use of ad-hom's then don't post them in the first place, simple huh?
To be fair to both the hockey stick and Mann you could at least provide a link to Mann and co's rebuttals. Also the IPCC is not solely based on computer models, it's available on the net and is chock full of observastions and predictions. So far the most serious complaint about the IPCC is that it predictions for methane levels do not reflect what has been observed. I urge you to read it rather than assume it's contents are guesswork.
"For example, until recently the use of aerosols was believed to contribute to the greenhouse effect"
Different aerosols have different effects, they are covered by the IPCC and climate models.
The basic question of AGW existance is over, even Bush, Murdoch and Howard now argree for the need to curb our emmisions (mind you they are not shouting from the rooftops). The current political and scientific question is now How much CO2 is too much?
To my mind the BBC article is as much a waste of time as it would be if the subject were creationisim. It has taken three decades for the AGW theory to become mainstream science, it has fought and won aginst powerfull vested interests and gullible journalists using nothing more than logic and observation. Now the luddites and vested interests are claiming science is rotten to the core and journalisim is going to be the judge and jury. Give me a fucking break!
"I don't think your parent post was attempting to state Jesus didn't exist."
You are correct, I belive there is plenty of evidence that Jesus did exist, Muslims and Jews also belive he existed. However, that does not imply that I or anyone else belives he was the son of God.
"The only reason it became news was because/. is a close minded community and the affected site happened to be pro-science."
There, all fixed now.
BTW: I think the site's content is off-topic and it's webmaster is blaming google for his own problems. This OT thread was started because someone claimed the summary was biased and I questioned it. If you don't like our "close minded community" then find another site that agrees with your "open minded dogma".
"I don't say it, secular science does. This is the thing you hear every time NASA collects some rock or debris from space somewhere."
You are making this shit up to reinforce you warped sterotype of scientists. This thread started because you claimed the summary was bias, however it's now blindingly obvious that it is you that is bias and hatefull towards secularism, not the other way around.
"You're missing a second assumption in addition to your first: That anything you cannot perceive does not exist"
No you are labouring under the assumption that everything must have a true/false answer, it's very unlikely that flying pigs exist, but it is NOT impossible! You cannot "prove" a negative as in "prove you don't have WMD's" or "guilty until proven innocent", but you can say something about probability. Things we cannot collectively percieve (eg: God, superstrings) fall into the "we don't know and can't find out" category of science.
As I said, some people would regard it as offtopic and you seem like an example of such. As I said elsewhere it's not biased other than it assumes a faith in the existance of the "real world".
Creationisim in the sense that it voids evolution is by definition psudeoscience, creationisim in the sense of an eternal being existing outside the universe who lit the wick to the big bang is metaphysics at best.
IANA cosmologigst but if spacetime is continually being created (stretched) as demonstrated by observing an expanding universe is it not possible that atomic particles "spontneously" arise in a similar manner to the "extra" spacetime? I have not heard a convincing argument against this theory (not mine) so science does not automatically demand creation. OTOH: If I am to be taken seriously by science I must demonstrate the "matter streching" theory is as good or better than the widely accepted big-bang theory.
Science admits it's failures anywhere "god divided by zero", including "the other side" of the big bang. What it asserts is that the big bang is the most complete explaination that fits what we currently percieve as "the Universe".
I would say it's a safe bet that the ability of science to provide answers to the jigsaw of life will continue to improve but will remain incomplete and ultimately subservient to brute force laced with ignorance and dogma.
"Its the same school of ethically creative science whch will call an unborn baby not a life, and yet find a molecule out in space and say its evidence for intelligent life."
Wow, you really are entertaining, you say science has found an "intelligent life" molecule?
As to the point you are failing to make on abortion, how is it more/less hypocritical than "praise god and pass the amunition" or "kill 'em all and let god sort it out"? Also how does the moral status of abortion involve science other than the epidemiological studies that demonstrate birth control is a boon to womens health and social equity outcomes?
There is no political "acid test" on abortion to become a scientist, to science morals are a matter of social opinion based on survival, animal instinct, upbringing, religion, politics, circumstance, personality and more. Science mearly supports or refutes claims made about "the real world" by all of the above, it informs people so their moral judgements can be aligned to "real world" consequenses, but it certainly does not adjudicate on moral issues (re: the worlds atomic arsenal).
You have an unusual definition of both "history" and "accurate" but I do agree religion has had an "historically evident impact" and is still a strong force in politics. Considering all the misery this preocupation with blind faith has wrought and the accelerating degradation of the environment, why not switch to the only system that has ever done anything to improve our lives in the one thing that we all agree exists, the real world!
You clearly have not put alot of reasearch or critical thinking into your concepts of philosophy, science or religion. You have added nothing new to science or philosophy and despite your "intelligent life molecule" addition to religious dogma I lost the desire to argue about it.
As I suggested in my other post, Carl Sagan's book will give you some valuable tips for your life long journey through our "demon haunted world" but I've had enough of trying to "inform" for now.
To paraphrase your post: "science is a religion". I disagree, please correct me if I misunderstood.
Science is based on a single "article of faith", ie: I belive the real world exists as I and others who inhabit said "real world" collectively percieve it. I can only prove with certainty that I exist and furthermore can only prove it to myself. If I do not have faith in the real world then "others" must be a figment of my imagination, a troublesome state of affairs since the imaginary/real others will declare me a psychopath and lock me up in a real/imaginary padded room.
Since I and "others" can observe and agree on things in and about the real world we can create testable theories that can be refined to better fit our observations and accurately predict outcomes. ie: We can practice the scientific method and refine our theories until we reach a (possibly non-existant) point where the only "assumption" is that the real world exists, or as I like to put it the Universe "just is".
So regarding a belief in evolution - The only faith required is the faith that the real world exists.
As for religion, it is based on blind faith, blind since I and "others" cannot percieve the same observations, these observations and associated theories fail the "real world" test because they cannot be demonstrated to "others" using their own perceptions. This does not mean religion is pointless or even psuedoscience, it simply means religion is not comprable to science (apples vs oranges). In my mind making such comparisons entirely misses the point of both endevours.
Psuedoscience, litteraly "fake science" is blind faith dressed in a lab coat. Sure creationism is a theory but it's NOT a scientific one, claiming otherwise is by definition, psudoscience.
Finally the lack of a strong scientific theory for the origin of life does not validate creationisim, nor does it invalidate the theory of evolution.
Bias: I suppose you could argue on some deep philosophical level that faith in the "real world" makes me biased toward...um...the real world, I can only wonder if that automatically means psychopath are unbiased? What does "science is a religion" prove? - I'm biased because science has a demonstratably superior track record of explaining and predicting the real world's behaviour whereas blind faith performs no better than random chance. Is that the kind of "bias" we are talking about here? - Because if it is, I am wondering how a non-phycopath can go to bed confident they will awake on the same planet the next morning?
Short cut to scientific enlightenment: Carl Sagan's book "A demon haunted world". It's also serves as an outstanding example of what a skeptic should be.
"This of course causes all sorts of problems for archaeology, geology and astronomy, and this fact alone might induce a lot of scientists to want to look the other way. So, I wouldn't expect a lot of curiosity on these things so long as they pose such a threat to research that has already been done."
AFAIK scientists spend a considerable amount of time looking for interesting problems, there is very little glory to be found in confirming the status-quo. It's also a good idea to actually understand the status-quo before claiming to have found a problem, it makes it so much more interesting for the reader.
"midgets who sleep with the mother of another midgets girlfriends best friends former roommate"
I agree, politicians are preoccupied with personal victories that do squat for the people they serve and two lies are rarely equal in consequences or motivation, eg: "Your ass looks great in those pants" vs "I promise not to invade Poland". But please, keep my family out of it!
Now if you will excuse me I must get back to my family reunion...Jerry....Jerry....Jerry....
"literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent wherever such a thing mattered"
Thing is only the wealthy "mattered" and "education" was not not that much different to the head nodding Koran schools of today's Pakistan. While public education is far from perfect, why the hell would you want to ban it only to end up like Africa?
To be serious I don't belive in banning SUV's, I belive by pumping out GHG we are using up finite "environmental services". This problem and this one are intertwined, both need unprecedented international cooperation and long range planning, sadly mankind seem to be distracted by bombs and bullets.
"These are not comparative examples, first of all movements sacrifice foot soldiers, or innocents not leaders and primary voices of opposition."
Basically I agree with your position that it's very unlikely, but what makes you think a blabber mouth ex-spy and a few jounalists are anything other than foot soldiers? There has been some dodgy stuff happening with their oil industry and billionaires (ie: non foot soldiers) have ended up in prison, not to mention both sides are also in competition with the west for access to the Caspian sea area.
Here's one, admittedly it's restricted to encyclopedic knowledge of one topic.
However I do agree that for trully encyclopedic knowledge with a strong referencing regime, WP is light-years ahead of any other free site. As you say: if it's not then where is a link to something better?
I find most "contraversies" about WP's "inaccuracies" are usually about some stupid "he said, she said" egotistical argument that interests only an ultra-minority of its users and has zero impact on WP's usefull qualities.
Either that or the "WP suck's" brigade simply don't like being proven wrong at the push of a button, instead of keeping their mouth shut and learning something they defend their fragile egos by attacking the messenger at every opportunity.
Slashdot Mirror
To the first point, I put quotes around "spontaneous" to emphasise the fact that I do not have any insight into how this could happen, not because I don't think there is a "cause". We know spacetime streches since it can now be observed and measured, as to the cause of the streching we run the streching backwards and postulate a big-bang, the big-bang predicts residule heat of a specific wave length and we find it! That is very roughly my understanding of the current state of cosmology.
Someone has postulated (I heard it from the "sidewalk astronomer"), that spacetime streching is actually specatime being "created" everywhere at once and a proportional amount of sub-atomic particles are also "created" (I belive current theory postulates "spontaneous" quantum creation of matter/anti-matter pairs). Now I chose this example because I truly have heard no rebuttals nor can I think of one, it is given scant attention and it contradicts the status-quo. ie: A scientific inquiry if you will.
The reason I was using an example in the first place was to show that, because the accepted big-bang theory just keeps looking better and better (plus the fact I cannot think of a testfor "my" theory), I must bow to conventional scientific wisdom in order to remain honest to myself (it is not about "authority" as someone has suggested, it's about humility and finite spare time). However if there is a cosmologigst amoung us who can rebut the idea (or concive a cause and/or test) I would love to hear it.
The second point was intended as humour, notably absent from this thread.
Disclaimer: My partner firmly belives in a Christian style God and "angels" once saved her life, furthermore I belive it happened to her as she describes it. However I don't accept her explaination and don't have much evidence for mine. I still prefer to think that the universe "just is", and when the traffic miraculously parts in front of me I look to my partner and say, "the universe is working for me today".
To genuinely "trust in God" (IMHO) is to realise that the desire to externalise "control" is ultimately futile so it is best to avoid doing it, other than for physical "self-defense" against mankinds tendency to want to bash each others brains in for "control". Somewhere around 40 I managed to realise this without the need to insert god, but if god works for you then stick to it and let nobody tell you that you personal answer to "why are we here" is wrong. Either way peolpe on both sides of the fence feel a great weight has been lifted when they "see the light". My partner and I also share the same feeling of "religious awe" when looking up at the heavens or watching a sunset and we both agree it's all mostly hydrogen, ignorance and arrogance.
If they offered a similar reward, I would tend to agree. Without the incentive it boils down to a journalist shouting "prove it", however I do understand he is attempting to build a case in a legalistic fashion and this article is just the first installment.
BTW: Sagan and Randi are my two favorite skeptics, I have followed both with interest since the early '80s. These people are what skeptisism is all about and should be mandatory reading for all journalists!
IANAP so do not have the time, background or inclination to research your pet theory. My post was responding to your use of blatantly false sterotyping to support said pet theory.
If you don't want responses that object to your use of ad-hom's then don't post them in the first place, simple huh?
To be fair to both the hockey stick and Mann you could at least provide a link to Mann and co's rebuttals. Also the IPCC is not solely based on computer models, it's available on the net and is chock full of observastions and predictions. So far the most serious complaint about the IPCC is that it predictions for methane levels do not reflect what has been observed. I urge you to read it rather than assume it's contents are guesswork.
"For example, until recently the use of aerosols was believed to contribute to the greenhouse effect"
Different aerosols have different effects, they are covered by the IPCC and climate models.
The basic question of AGW existance is over, even Bush, Murdoch and Howard now argree for the need to curb our emmisions (mind you they are not shouting from the rooftops). The current political and scientific question is now How much CO2 is too much?
To my mind the BBC article is as much a waste of time as it would be if the subject were creationisim. It has taken three decades for the AGW theory to become mainstream science, it has fought and won aginst powerfull vested interests and gullible journalists using nothing more than logic and observation. Now the luddites and vested interests are claiming science is rotten to the core and journalisim is going to be the judge and jury. Give me a fucking break!
"I don't think your parent post was attempting to state Jesus didn't exist."
You are correct, I belive there is plenty of evidence that Jesus did exist, Muslims and Jews also belive he existed. However, that does not imply that I or anyone else belives he was the son of God.
"The only reason it became news was because /. is a close minded community and the affected site happened to be pro-science."
There, all fixed now.
BTW: I think the site's content is off-topic and it's webmaster is blaming google for his own problems. This OT thread was started because someone claimed the summary was biased and I questioned it. If you don't like our "close minded community" then find another site that agrees with your "open minded dogma".
"I don't say it, secular science does. This is the thing you hear every time NASA collects some rock or debris from space somewhere."
You are making this shit up to reinforce you warped sterotype of scientists. This thread started because you claimed the summary was bias, however it's now blindingly obvious that it is you that is bias and hatefull towards secularism, not the other way around.
"You're missing a second assumption in addition to your first: That anything you cannot perceive does not exist"
No you are labouring under the assumption that everything must have a true/false answer, it's very unlikely that flying pigs exist, but it is NOT impossible! You cannot "prove" a negative as in "prove you don't have WMD's" or "guilty until proven innocent", but you can say something about probability. Things we cannot collectively percieve (eg: God, superstrings) fall into the "we don't know and can't find out" category of science.
-isims. Sorry, I can't help the fact that I'm a "baby boomer".
As I said, some people would regard it as offtopic and you seem like an example of such. As I said elsewhere it's not biased other than it assumes a faith in the existance of the "real world".
Creationisim in the sense that it voids evolution is by definition psudeoscience, creationisim in the sense of an eternal being existing outside the universe who lit the wick to the big bang is metaphysics at best.
IANA cosmologigst but if spacetime is continually being created (stretched) as demonstrated by observing an expanding universe is it not possible that atomic particles "spontneously" arise in a similar manner to the "extra" spacetime? I have not heard a convincing argument against this theory (not mine) so science does not automatically demand creation. OTOH: If I am to be taken seriously by science I must demonstrate the "matter streching" theory is as good or better than the widely accepted big-bang theory.
Science admits it's failures anywhere "god divided by zero", including "the other side" of the big bang. What it asserts is that the big bang is the most complete explaination that fits what we currently percieve as "the Universe".
I would say it's a safe bet that the ability of science to provide answers to the jigsaw of life will continue to improve but will remain incomplete and ultimately subservient to brute force laced with ignorance and dogma.
Also there is a very good reason why faith in god must be blind.
"Its the same school of ethically creative science whch will call an unborn baby not a life, and yet find a molecule out in space and say its evidence for intelligent life."
Wow, you really are entertaining, you say science has found an "intelligent life" molecule?
As to the point you are failing to make on abortion, how is it more/less hypocritical than "praise god and pass the amunition" or "kill 'em all and let god sort it out"? Also how does the moral status of abortion involve science other than the epidemiological studies that demonstrate birth control is a boon to womens health and social equity outcomes?
There is no political "acid test" on abortion to become a scientist, to science morals are a matter of social opinion based on survival, animal instinct, upbringing, religion, politics, circumstance, personality and more. Science mearly supports or refutes claims made about "the real world" by all of the above, it informs people so their moral judgements can be aligned to "real world" consequenses, but it certainly does not adjudicate on moral issues (re: the worlds atomic arsenal).
You have an unusual definition of both "history" and "accurate" but I do agree religion has had an "historically evident impact" and is still a strong force in politics. Considering all the misery this preocupation with blind faith has wrought and the accelerating degradation of the environment, why not switch to the only system that has ever done anything to improve our lives in the one thing that we all agree exists, the real world!
You clearly have not put alot of reasearch or critical thinking into your concepts of philosophy, science or religion. You have added nothing new to science or philosophy and despite your "intelligent life molecule" addition to religious dogma I lost the desire to argue about it.
As I suggested in my other post, Carl Sagan's book will give you some valuable tips for your life long journey through our "demon haunted world" but I've had enough of trying to "inform" for now.
To paraphrase your post: "science is a religion". I disagree, please correct me if I misunderstood.
Science is based on a single "article of faith", ie: I belive the real world exists as I and others who inhabit said "real world" collectively percieve it. I can only prove with certainty that I exist and furthermore can only prove it to myself. If I do not have faith in the real world then "others" must be a figment of my imagination, a troublesome state of affairs since the imaginary/real others will declare me a psychopath and lock me up in a real/imaginary padded room.
Since I and "others" can observe and agree on things in and about the real world we can create testable theories that can be refined to better fit our observations and accurately predict outcomes. ie: We can practice the scientific method and refine our theories until we reach a (possibly non-existant) point where the only "assumption" is that the real world exists, or as I like to put it the Universe "just is".
So regarding a belief in evolution - The only faith required is the faith that the real world exists.
As for religion, it is based on blind faith, blind since I and "others" cannot percieve the same observations, these observations and associated theories fail the "real world" test because they cannot be demonstrated to "others" using their own perceptions. This does not mean religion is pointless or even psuedoscience, it simply means religion is not comprable to science (apples vs oranges). In my mind making such comparisons entirely misses the point of both endevours.
Psuedoscience, litteraly "fake science" is blind faith dressed in a lab coat. Sure creationism is a theory but it's NOT a scientific one, claiming otherwise is by definition, psudoscience.
Finally the lack of a strong scientific theory for the origin of life does not validate creationisim, nor does it invalidate the theory of evolution.
Bias: I suppose you could argue on some deep philosophical level that faith in the "real world" makes me biased toward...um...the real world, I can only wonder if that automatically means psychopath are unbiased? What does "science is a religion" prove? - I'm biased because science has a demonstratably superior track record of explaining and predicting the real world's behaviour whereas blind faith performs no better than random chance. Is that the kind of "bias" we are talking about here? - Because if it is, I am wondering how a non-phycopath can go to bed confident they will awake on the same planet the next morning?
Short cut to scientific enlightenment: Carl Sagan's book "A demon haunted world". It's also serves as an outstanding example of what a skeptic should be.
The bit you have quoted may be seen as offtopic by some, but how is it biased?
evolutionism?
"can't look past the end of their bumper when driving"
I regularly can't see past my bumper, all I see is the spare tyre on the SUV in front of me.
"This of course causes all sorts of problems for archaeology, geology and astronomy, and this fact alone might induce a lot of scientists to want to look the other way. So, I wouldn't expect a lot of curiosity on these things so long as they pose such a threat to research that has already been done."
AFAIK scientists spend a considerable amount of time looking for interesting problems, there is very little glory to be found in confirming the status-quo. It's also a good idea to actually understand the status-quo before claiming to have found a problem, it makes it so much more interesting for the reader.
"midgets who sleep with the mother of another midgets girlfriends best friends former roommate"
I agree, politicians are preoccupied with personal victories that do squat for the people they serve and two lies are rarely equal in consequences or motivation, eg: "Your ass looks great in those pants" vs "I promise not to invade Poland". But please, keep my family out of it!
Now if you will excuse me I must get back to my family reunion...Jerry....Jerry....Jerry....
"I would be more open to your (and the Russian state media) accusations of 'wag the dog' assignations,..."
Slow down cowboy, in the sentance before the one you quoted I said: "Basically I agree with your position that it's very unlikely"
"Because that is all they have"
I see your point.
"literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent wherever such a thing mattered"
Thing is only the wealthy "mattered" and "education" was not not that much different to the head nodding Koran schools of today's Pakistan. While public education is far from perfect, why the hell would you want to ban it only to end up like Africa?
To be serious I don't belive in banning SUV's, I belive by pumping out GHG we are using up finite "environmental services". This problem and this one are intertwined, both need unprecedented international cooperation and long range planning, sadly mankind seem to be distracted by bombs and bullets.
"These are not comparative examples, first of all movements sacrifice foot soldiers, or innocents not leaders and primary voices of opposition."
Basically I agree with your position that it's very unlikely, but what makes you think a blabber mouth ex-spy and a few jounalists are anything other than foot soldiers? There has been some dodgy stuff happening with their oil industry and billionaires (ie: non foot soldiers) have ended up in prison, not to mention both sides are also in competition with the west for access to the Caspian sea area.
Woops
Here's one, admittedly it's restricted to encyclopedic knowledge of one topic.
However I do agree that for trully encyclopedic knowledge with a strong referencing regime, WP is light-years ahead of any other free site. As you say: if it's not then where is a link to something better?
I find most "contraversies" about WP's "inaccuracies" are usually about some stupid "he said, she said" egotistical argument that interests only an ultra-minority of its users and has zero impact on WP's usefull qualities.
Either that or the "WP suck's" brigade simply don't like being proven wrong at the push of a button, instead of keeping their mouth shut and learning something they defend their fragile egos by attacking the messenger at every opportunity.
I hope they aren't gathering intel for an upcoming "war on SUV's".