In article <1134247691.578503.301...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Thus reality, according to you, doesn't
exist prior to, or higher to, science, it exists only
when, and as, science says it is so. Yes?
Not at all. Scientists assume reality has an independent
existence. The term "science" refers to our UNDERSTANDING of
reality, based on the best available evidence. Our
understanding changes as new evidence is developed. But the
rules of science are that one must look at the evidence with a
skeptical eye, always considering alternative explanations, and
one must seek independent, EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION of all
claims. You can't just sit back and "figure things out in your
head", or wait for "God's revealed wisdom" to pop into it.
Sometimes, for brief periods, scientists disagree about the
evidence, e.g.,, people get different results in different labs,
and each group thinks the other one is doing the experiment
wrong. But with time, and further work, they eventually figure
things out. I have personally witnessed this in my work on rat
Religion, in the modern world, has become limited to claims
about things that CANNOT be investigated experimentally.
Can you see this extrapolation of your
argument as being fair? If not, let me restate what you
stated: "What Science can debunk is claims about
observable phenomena that result from these theories or
ideas. It does this all the time. What's left, then,
are claims that have no relation to reality". Dave T.
That is exactly right. People can blather all they want
about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and
science has nothing to say about it — unless they make claims
about being able observe some physical result of all this
dancing. Then some impertinent scientist will go off and
actually do the experiment, which ruins everything.
Ok, so let me
ask you Dave, with all due respect, if in 10,000 years
from today, scientists discover the means of proving or
disproving the theory of "genetic" predisposition to
personal persuasions (i.e. behavior of thought & emotion
and consequential physical expression), would this mean,
according to you, that such claims being made today,
i.e. that human beings are basically physical robots
following genetic code, is bull shit?
First of all, nobody claims that people are robots whose
behavior is fully predetermined by their genetic makeup. But
putting that aside, our understanding circa 2005 of the genetic
components of personality might be proved wrong someday, but it
would not be "bullshit", because the conclusions that are
reached today are based on the best available evidence. That
doesn't mean they're right, it just means they're well-founded.
And the more evidence we accumulate, the less likely it is that
our conclusions will be overturned by later experiments.
few hundred years people be recognized today as eminent
scientists believed that space was flat. Einstein said that
space was curved, and made TESTABLE PREDICTIONS. People went
off and did the experiments, one of which involved observing
starlight being bent during an eclipse, and they found that
Einstein's predictions were correct, and his theory was the best
explanation for the data. That is how science progresses. If
you come up with some radical new theory, you have to show how
it can be tested by people who think you're wrong, and the tests
have to come out in your favor. Then people will start to
"if your theory is not capable of suffering the rigors
of (modern day, lol) scientific examination &
confirmation, your theories are false.
That's sort of right. If your theory doesn't make
any testable predictions at all, then it's not false, it's just
religious twaddle. If it does make predictions, e.g., "holy
water cures epilepsy", then it can be tested, and if it
repeatedly fails the test, and you still believe it, then your
beliefs are bullshit.
REALITY is only that which (modern day, lol) science can
confirm (and thus inform us) it is.
As I said before, reality has an independent existence. Science
offers us a path toward understanding the nature of reality. As
evidence accumulates, our best guess can change, but it should
always be based on the best available evidence, not on
persuasive bullshit, revealed wisdom, or wishful thinking.
If, what you are
offering us for consumption is true, then the world was
flat until science could prove it was round (or
A flat earth was the best theory until the Greek's figured out
that the earth was round. The Christian church ignored the
evidence because it conflicted with their theology. Their
belief was bullshit because it was based on a literal
interpretation of the bible, ignoring the contradictions
revealed by observation and reasoning.
And in the
meantime we must live in a sort of "Quantum" Uncollapsed
Reality? Until Science collapses the confusion for us?
LOL (all caps). "Modern Day" Science no less? Lol.
At all times, we live with our best guess as to the nature of
reality. We should always be willing to entertain new
hypotheses, but as James Randi likes to say, extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof.
With all due
respect Dave (and I do respect you greatly) your
argument against the existence of some hidden,
unprovable, powerful force in the field of human
endeavors (called God by some) is every bit as weak as
the argument for the existence of it (or he, or she, as
the case may be).
I disagree. As our understanding advances, a lot of stuff
attributed to "God" (or "gods", demons, ghosts, the cosmic
ether, phlogiston, etc.) has been explained away by natural
mechanisms that are reliably, experimentally testable. There's
little room left for God in the natural world. Religion has
been left talking about pure intangibles like "grace" which by
their very definition have no practical meaning and cannot be
measured or tested.
They say "God is
the source of Reality". And you respond "Science is the
source of Reality".
Nope. Reality just is. Science is our best method for trying
to know reality. It is very effective. As it advances,
mechanics have some counterpart in the
Most people who talk about "quantum mechanics" have no
understanding of the subject. They just use it as a metaphor
for "spooky stuff". I am endeavoring to learn a bit of quantum
mechanics in my spare time. I don't claim to understand the
equations yet, but I can say that I find studying the subject
far more rewarding than listening to bullshit about it spouted
by people who haven't mastered basic algebra and lack even the
faintest idea of how to run a properly controlled experiment.
This is not a dig at you personally; I have no idea who you are
or what you're like. But I'm not done making fun of JP yet.