|
Post by betahat on Aug 6, 2009 18:32:06 GMT -5
True, but a lot of science is agreed upon. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Even something as basic as the divinity and resurrection of Jesus is controversial among people who call themselves Christians. I mean, that's one of the foundational aspects of Christianity and they don't even agree on that. What's your take on that by the way?
I think it is easier to reach a consensus in science than in the interpretation of religious texts, but sure, scientists have their own versions of the reformation, counter-reformation, the crusades, etc. though they tend to involve less blood and burning of heretics (more like rejection from journals, not being invited to conferences, and verbal smackdowns). The different scientific schools don't advertise their differences as prominently as the religious denominations, but sure, they have their infighting, squabbles, battles over ego and prestige, etc.
|
|
|
Post by hapatite on Aug 6, 2009 22:04:13 GMT -5
Fair enough, the "upper ends of science" appear to be irrational, counter intuitive waffle. I see it as not relevant enough to say the process is entirely unreliable bunk.
haplotype, isn't that the point of statistics? Using an approximation to portray data because there is too much information to fully process? Certain distributions fit better than others, it depends how you analyse the raw data (I'm also doing a degree in maths). I see it as a way to avoid processing all the data... If you could hypothetically know enough about a dice being thrown so that you could predict how it would land, wouldn't that be great? You wouldn't have to rely on saying, probably of A happening is X %, not that that is wrong but just, unsatisfactory. To me.
Well, there are some that are effectively taken as scientific law, or laws of nature... Newtonian motion (before you start saying Newton's laws break down in extremely large or small cases...), conservation of masses and energy, Hooke's law of elasticity... because if they were proven wrong, all science based on that law would collapse.
True, I suppose. We just have to say in the name of convention that in some cases, some things are undefined in our number system, or in the case of this, use that notation or whatever it may be... it's how we define maths as a language to interpret certain axioms of nature. What revolutions are you hinting at?
Guilt by association and choosing select individuals doesn't say much. The same can be applied to theists, and just think of the number of people who have killed in the name of religion.
Personally, I seek happiness and understanding, and giving that to others, I think that is most important, and it may inevitably include some pleasure. Atheists and theists I have met both have questionable morals, I just try to see every person for the individual they are. Likewise, it disappoints me to see my christian friend flaunt his own morals and do differently himself. I think religion is the crutch of a weak mind, used to parry responsibilty of your own actions. You do something wrong, "The devil made me do it." Do something right, "God be praised". When in dire straits, turn to God. I do not reject written works as attempts made to lead us to a higher moral code and more tolerant coexistence but I cannot believe in a deity as I cannot believe in fairy tales. As betahat mentioned, there is also the issue of picking and choosing your morals from religious texts. What would make you say murder is wrong, but not, that people who work on the Sabbath be put to death? Observations of contemporary and practical society... as deduced by human reasoning and logic?
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Aug 7, 2009 9:00:01 GMT -5
True, but a lot of science is agreed upon. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Even something as basic as the divinity and resurrection of Jesus is controversial among people who call themselves Christians. I mean, that's one of the foundational aspects of Christianity and they don't even agree on that. What's your take on that by the way? It shows that if a great person dies, their spirit still lives on among their followers. That would be the safest interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Aug 7, 2009 9:33:28 GMT -5
Fair enough, the "upper ends of science" appear to be irrational, counter intuitive waffle. I see it as not relevant enough to say the process is entirely unreliable bunk. People's lives do depend upon good medical advice, reliable bridges, etc. It does call for a thorough examination of all the assumptions that went into the technology/advice. When the assumptions are examined deeply, there is plenty of seaminess to be found. If we only operate on a "good enough" principle, then we have the current situation where advances grind to a halt, and different studies throw up contradictory results. Statistics reduce the raw data into group statistics, through the concept of sufficiency. But it can also create misleading generalizations. For example, at my current job at an insurance company, I am examining the costs of medical equipment ordered by doctors. It appears that certain clinics, certain types of doctors charge higher prices. But when we examine the individual orders, it really does boil down to certain individuals at certain times. I could say that e.g. "pulmonologists charge too much for oxygen airway devices", but it is a misleading generalization that does not apply to all pulmonologists, or even the majority of them. The same problems arise in medical advice, government policy recommendations -- the advice may not even work for the majority of people. They are based on generalizations, which amount to stereotypes. As scientists acknowledge, laws are "models". The models are a metaphor for reality, but should not be confused with reality itself. If someone comes up with a better model, then we apply the new generalizations to reality. I won't say for sure when or in what form the revolution will happen, but computers will make their impact upon mathematics education, notation, etc. Some tasks no longer require human skill, and create the need for new tasks. If environmentalists have their way, then we should have Sabbath days where we don't consume resources. So we may come full circle on that issue. Our "secular" culture is being overtaken by the theocracy of environmentalism.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Aug 7, 2009 11:13:02 GMT -5
Yes but isn't it environmentally better to spread the Sabbath out on different days rather having it on the same day for everyone. That way we would save on congestion and energy generation from intermittent and hard to shut down sources. The main advantage of having it on the same day would be if we could shut all businesses down - on net perhaps the closed businesses would consume less energy than was wasted by drastically changing the energy output into the grid.
But I haven't heard any environmentalists advocating for a Sabbath, as opposed to major changes in our daily lifestyles. Where is this being proposed?
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Aug 7, 2009 12:57:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Aug 7, 2009 14:52:58 GMT -5
I wouldn't call some of these things Sabbath- it's once a year, though it does fall on a Saturday (just not after sundown on the preceding friday). Trust me, having just been to Israel, the Sabbath is bloody inconvenient and ruins your travel plans for two days. It's a lot mroe inconvenient than taking a bike or not buying anything - you're not even supposed to answer the phone if you're strictly observant.
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Aug 11, 2009 15:03:09 GMT -5
Well let's see here, according to the latest nonsense from evolutionary theory, humans came down from the trees -- contradicting the "scientific proof" taught in biology class that hominids dragged their knuckles and never climbed trees. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810162005.htmAnother finding turns the notion of "natural selection" on its head. Males with lower genetic quality were more successful in producing offspring than males with higher genetic quality. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090625141458.htmTo future generations, the mythology of evolution taught in schools today will likely seem as superstitious and backward as ancient Egyptian myth.
|
|
|
Post by Groink on Aug 11, 2009 16:11:10 GMT -5
"High genetic quality" seems to be a bit subjective. I tried googling around for more in-depth articles, but only found the same blurb. And other stuff about the beetle's spiked penis.
|
|
|
Post by hapatite on Aug 11, 2009 16:30:03 GMT -5
But that study was only done on seed beetles... and also check this: "Males who gained the highest share of paternity were actually males with low genetic quality. These males also fathered offspring that did less well."Well, with both those articles, they hardly turn the entire notion of evolution on its head, I think it will just cause some re-evaluation. I think to fall back to creationism by elimination or default would be using faulty logic. "High genetic quality" seems to be a bit subjective. I tried googling around for more in-depth articles, but only found the same blurb. And other stuff about the beetle's spiked penis. If you think that's bad, be prepared to be impressed by this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_insemination
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Aug 11, 2009 16:48:51 GMT -5
The environment is ephemeral, so genes that provide a survival advantage one day will be a handicap the next day. "Survival of the fittest" is no more rational than the concept of a winning streak. Despite what many sports or gambling enthusiasts believe, observed game outcomes are consistent with memoryless probabilities.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Aug 11, 2009 18:10:49 GMT -5
So humans are a lucky winning streak? I buy that. We could have been the velociraptor people... But seriously, if I were a creationist I would not take solace that there is still debate about knuckle-dragging versus tree-climbing, since it amounts to a choice between Satan and the Devil. I would demand to see the Crocoduck: Just to be clear on this Haplo, you do actually believe that humans evolved from single-celled organisms via primates (even if it was all guided by the hand of God playing with rigged dice), right? So that this kind of debate among scientists is no more problematic to the overall theory of evolution than a debate among Protestants and Catholics over the Trinity is to the New Testament in general?
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Aug 11, 2009 21:14:17 GMT -5
Rationally speaking, it would appear logical that single-celled organisms arose before multicellular life. Beyond that, any number of things could have happened -- multicellular organisms could have devolved into a new kind of single-celled organism and taken over the world, before more complex life forms emerged. Mammals, reptiles, arthropods could have appeared, then died out, then appeared, had multiple origins. The current technique of inferring common origins through DNA similarities cannot rule out the possibility that completely different organisms evolved into similar species by convergent evolution, either. Gene transfer is known to take place between "advanced" organisms. All of this DNA stuff may turn out to be a statistical illusion. So is it with the isotopic dating of rocks. I'm not prepared to believe firmly in anything about our origins, biologically or physically.
I follow Christianity as an issue of cultural and moral alliegance. I've been exposed to enough non-Christians to know that I am not a Muslim or a Hindu, I do not think like them.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Aug 12, 2009 0:31:29 GMT -5
^I'm not prepared to believe firmly in anything about our origins, biologically or physically.
But you would agree that our best guess based on the evidence is some kind of common ancestor with primates? If not, what is your alternative best guess?
You're a statistician, so let's say you were betting on it. Nothing is for certain, but wouldn't you put your money on common origin with the great apes?
I don't want to deny your skepticism, or ability to see everything probabilistically. But are you so far gone that you won't even form a prior on the probability distribution of different scenarios?
|
|
|
Post by D.A on Aug 12, 2009 7:57:15 GMT -5
Don't forget the gullshark.
|
|