This post was, of course, in reference to the egregious spelling error mentioned by Ryan.
And nope, I don't see anything wrong with the speeling in this post, so I think I'm safe in commenting. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:2) faith and belief has no place in the empiricle sciences, which are based upon experimentation and observation.
And prayer doesn't count as experimentation because...?
You want to do a scientific experiment on prayer, be my guest. First you have to come up with a hypothesis. So your hypothesis is... what?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Awww gimme a break. Its 4:30 in the frackin morning. I'm a frackin physist, not an english major. When I get tired my spelling and grammar go to hell in a handbasket Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You want to do a scientific experiment on prayer, be my guest. First you have to come up with a hypothesis. So your hypothesis is... what?
That prayer gives the same answer to multiple people. If the answer is something personal bias will affect and all different kinds of people still get the same answer, then there must be an answerer beyond our own subconscious, no?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Awww gimme a break. Its 4:30 in the frackin morning. I'm a frackin physist, not an english major. When I get tired my spelling and grammar go to hell in a handbasket
I know, I know. I was just giving you a hard time. I mean hey, what else do I have to do at 2:30 in the morning?
What is this sleep people keep talking about? Posts: 61 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That prayer gives the same answer to multiple people. If the answer is something personal bias will affect and all different kinds of people still get the same answer, then there must be an answerer beyond our own subconscious, no?
And that would be why there's only one religion in the world, right?
edit: added the rest of the post to the quote.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That prayer gives the same answer to multiple people. If the answer is something personal bias will affect and all different kinds of people still get the same answer, then there must be an answerer beyond our own subconscious, no?
Alright, your experiment to test this will work how? Remember, you need a control, a way to ground it in reality, you need to test a large portion of the population, and you need to remove all bias in someway. Both in running the experiment, and in interpreting the result. You must make it possible for people to repeat your experiment and get the same results.
So, your experiment designs are...?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a design, I don't care, and the question, Ronnie, would not be that because there's already a universal bias for that. It's natural for people to have as part of there principles that there's only one possible meaning of life, the one they already hold.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
You asked why it doesn't include prayer I'm showing you why not. Coming up with an unbiased experiment to test prayer would be damned near impossible. People have done studies on prayer, but their studies took out the faith and religion and looked merely at the health benefits from a biological and psycological stand point. You can look up the studies if you want.
Running an unbaised experiment on prayer as a test of validity for a religion, as you seemed to be suggesting, would be... well *shrug* good luck.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: That prayer gives the same answer to multiple people. If the answer is something personal bias will affect and all different kinds of people still get the same answer, then there must be an answerer beyond our own subconscious, no?
Not necessarily true. First of all, I don't think that hypothesis is specific enough to test, and even if it were, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. All the people you're testing do in fact have one thing (at least) in common. They exress spirituality through prayer. So it could conceivably be that that act of praying itself would lead multiple people to the same conclusion, rather than the influence of some external force.
Also, I can't find any links right now, but there HAVE been studies on the neurology of people in prayer and meditation. If I'm remembering correctly, the frontal lobe of the brain becomes highly active, while the parietal lobe shows increased dormancy.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:1.A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2.The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3.A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
So there are different definitions of the word "theory." Alcon's complaint, not well-stated, but valid anyway, is that in the political world, there has been an effort to undermine the meaning of Scientific Theory (definition 1.), by repeatedly using definition 6. in its place. Particularly (presumably) by religious conservatives who find that certain scientific "theories" (definition 6.) discredit, or at least call into question, their own beliefs.
I think we can all agree on a common ground, here. The fact that this definition-switching is happening is demonstrable and provable.
I think where Alcon has gotten himself into trouble is in making some rather poor arguments.
*Of course* there are people who can accept the science of electricity while rejecting the theory of the Big Bang. We use electricity every day -- it is not in question, and it does not in any way call into question anyone's religious beliefs.
Religion and science do not compete when it comes to the issue of electricity.
They *can* when it comes to the Big Bang.
Additionally, the Big Bang doesn't quite meet the same standard, in terms of the science which can be applied to the theory, as electricity does. There are no competing theories when it comes to electricity. Electricity is known.
The Big Bang is not proven in the same way. (When I say *proven*, I mean in an every-day, understandable-by-people-with-no-scientific-training way.)
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, it's not a legitimate hypothesis. But I'm glad for having put it up and learning that.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So when Alcon says "let's get something straight," what I objected to in my initial response is that he's actually wrong about the thing he wants to get straight. (Which, when you get right down to it, is the definition of the word "theory"). And making the argument that, because some people reject a few scientific theories which compete with their own religious beliefs, they are rejecting science (or should be made to, or something) -- it's just an inherently silly argument.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's a silly argument when people reject scientific theories, attempt to replace them with pseudo-religious theories, and in the process, damage science by undermining fundamental scientific meanings in the mind of the public.
Perhaps "rejecting science" is a bit hyperbolic, but in the sense that we have people preaching what could, at best, be described as a philosophical argument and labeling it a scientific theory, I don't think it's all that much of a strech.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it's a silly argument when people reject scientific theories, attempt to replace them with pseudo-religious theories, and in the process, damage science by undermining fundamental scientific meanings in the mind of the public.
Neither do I, and that's not what I said. That's where Alcon and I are in agreement.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought you were saying "it is silly to argue that because some people reject certain scientific theories, they are rejecting science."
If that wasn't what you meant, my bad. It's getting late, and my contacts seem to be willfully frolicking over my eyeballs.
If that was what you meant though, then maybe I should be clearer: that argument is not silly because one of the methods of attack against those theories is undermining the scientific concept of the theory. ID proponents, whether or not they mean to, are capitalizing on a misconception that damages science. I consider this "rejecting science" in the same way that I'd call purposefully mischaracterizing the scientific method as "trial and error" rejecting science.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought you were saying "it is silly to argue that because some people reject certain scientific theories, they are rejecting science."
Well, yes. That is silly.
quote:If that was what you meant though, then maybe I should be clearer: that argument is not silly because one of the methods of attack against those theories is undermining the scientific concept of the theory. ID proponents, whether or not they mean to, are capitalizing on a misconception that damages science. I consider this "rejecting science" in the same way that I'd call purposefully mischaracterizing the scientific method as "trial and error" rejecting science.
Well, then we're splitting hairs. Because that is not what I meant (or what Alcon posted) when it comes to "rejecting science."
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, dammit, it's no fun if we just agree and break out into song! Sounds too much like hippy camp.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there are different theories of electricity, they are just more esoteric in nature (and are often bundled in with other related theories). The reason anti-matter was discovered was that using matrix math (I believe), certain things were implied; one way to look at these things was that something about the environment that electrons "live" in was dimpled, with this energy wells. Depending on your math, you can visualize different reasons for how electrons follow, for instance, Maxwell's equations.
^--- That's my half-remembered recollection of what I read in this book.
The Big Bang has fairly large amount of evidence too, it's just that, given the nature of what is being studied, it is lots of arcane evidence. The microwave background radiation pretty much proved that a Big Bang happened, it's more a matter of how now (which is where multiple theories come in).
Sure, if you compare papers written, electricity may well have a huge lead, but that just means it's been around longer as a theory. I think it would be naive to say that the Big Bang has substantially less qualitative evidence, about the event itself.
quote:The Big Bang has fairly large amount of evidence too, it's just that, given the nature of what is being studied, it is lots of arcane evidence.
Here's the crux of the differnece.
Most people, myself included have to take other people's word about it when it comes to the big bang. I haven't built a radio telescope and observed the residue of the big bang -- I have to believe others. Even if I did, I'd still have to, on some level, take other's word that the background radiation of the universe is indicative of the big bang. Almost everybody in the world that believes in the big bang doesn't understand all of the cosmology and evidence for it.
Electricity, air conditioning don't require any trust in anybody else to see that they exist. Nobody needs convincing that electric lights turn on when the switch is flipped. Everybody can see for themselves that cars really work.
It is patently absurd, Alcon, for you to imply that it is hypocritical for somebody to not believe in the big bang and yet to somehow still believe in and use electric lighting, air conditioning, automobiles, or medicine.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'd like to refer you again to the distinction I drew at the beginning of this thread. Certainly, we know how to make electricity work for us; but that's not the scientific part, that's merely engineering. The scientific theory of electricity makes no reference to air conditioners or light bulbs; it talks about currents, electrons, and electric potentials. I defy you to point at any of these. In a somewhat similar vein, you can see that the phenomenon we describe as gravity exists, by flinging yourself off a tall building; but this does not verify that our theory of gravity - Newton's or Einstein's, take your pick - is correct. Have you ever seen a bent bit of space-time?
I would also note that the 'laws' of physics are actually theories; unfortunately, they were named in the nineteenth century, when people were a little more self-confident, even arrogant. Hence Newton's "law" of Gravity is actually less accurate than Einstein's "theory".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes, Democritus. Atomic theory, bah. There are two possibilities : Either matter is infinitely divisible, or it isn't. Democritus had a 50% chance of getting it right. And since someone had already taken the other possibility, well. Not very impressive.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly, we know how to make electricity work for us; but that's not the scientific part, that's merely engineering.
Exactly!
quote:Oh yes, Democritus. Atomic theory, bah. There are two possibilities : Either matter is infinitely divisible, or it isn't. Democritus had a 50% chance of getting it right.
Whether or not he was a scientist isn't dependent on his teachings agreeing with modern science, but with how he came to believe what he taught. He never saw any evidence that atoms are real. Just like Aristotle's "science", this was philosophy, not science.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
m_p_h, While I appreciate the difference, do you agree it is moot when discussing the actual scientific merits?
Just because you can't create your own radio telescope is not enough reason to dismiss the repeated results of the several groups who have them, and have pointed them to the spectrum predicted to have the background radiation signature.
--- KoM, how far off was I in my post? I don't mind getting corrected.
posted
Bok, It's not about the actual scientific merits. It's about the effectiveness of Alcon's rhetoric. I understand the point he's making, but mph is right, you can't expect evolution or cosmology to have the same impact on the average joe as electricity. Try stopping someone on the street and see if they know what "background radiation signature" means. I'm well enough educated, and I have an idea, but I couldn't define it for you.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You want to do a scientific experiment on prayer, be my guest. First you have to come up with a hypothesis. So your hypothesis is... what?
That prayer gives the same answer to multiple people. If the answer is something personal bias will affect and all different kinds of people still get the same answer, then there must be an answerer beyond our own subconscious, no?
I'm sorry. No. I hope this does not offend the LDS members of the board, but I feel constrained to report my experience in this area.
I did not get the answer that I was "supposed" to get. When I did not, after years - yes, literally years; I'm stubborn - I was told that it was my fault. I was sinning, or I wasn't paying enough tithing, or I didn't have enough faith. Well, I know my own conscience and my own actions, and I was doing everything I was supposed to. If anything, I was being what the Catholics call too scrupulous. It took me probably twenty years to realize that, no, I was not at fault. I was getting an answer, all right, just not the one I was told I would get, the one I was expected to get, the one that I desperately wanted to get. I did not get the "right" answer, and after my experience no one can convince me that prayer is a legitimate scientific method.
Not saying that prayer is a bad thing; just saying that everyone does not get the same answer. Which kind of rules it out as a path to scientific truth.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Engineering is considered an "applied science". Engineers can be scientists and scientists can be engineers at any given minute regardless of what their degree might be.
posted
It can be awfully inconvenient. They'll be walking down the street, stop to look at something pretty, and then BAM! Science!
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
m_p_h, I took your post as Juxtapose read me. I realize now you were arguing against Alcon's incredulity (which I agree with you about), but I feel that addressing only his incredulity is really just rhetorical nit-picking. Which normally I wouldn't post about, since I think I'm a fan of the picking of rhetorical-nits here at Hatrack.
posted
"But if something reaches theory point it means we've seen a lot of examples and they all hold to the theory." "Science doesn't prove anything, but if its theory its as good as proven. Its as close as science can come. Some theories have more evidense than others yes, but they all have a whole lot of evidense. "
Spontaneous Generation was considered a theory (some would even say a law) too. Multiple experiments were that proved it. There was a lot of evidence for it.
"The only reason we hear more about the big bang is that it contradicts peoples religious views and there is no practical offshoot of it that people can watch working every day." Not necessarily true. It doesn't contradict my religious views. My skepticism is that to me personally, there is a difference between theories that we can test and use and theories that try to take what we can observe and try to extrapolate that back through time (vast amounts of time as far as evolution and big bang are concerned). So maybe it's just because I am an engineer, but I'm much more prone to accept theories that I can see, use, and test than I am ones that make up a story about something that happened eons ago on the basis of extremely limited current observations. That just seems more like the realm of religion to me anyway
I'm not trying to imply that evolution and the big bang will go the way of spontaneous generation. On the contrary, I think they are mostly right. My point is simply to echo what KoM said and suggest that we are sometimes just too self-confident or arrogent when it comes to our knowledge. Whether this comes as a backlash from religious conservatives or the conservative backlash comes from scientific arrogance is anybody's guess. Why can't we all just be friends?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
