Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Belief in...

Te wrote:
"I can however say with much more certainty that scientists of equal weight and eminence are disagreeing on other important matters - global warming readily comes to mind."

In this you are incorrect. There are no scientists of any degree of eminence that are disagreeing about global warming. The disagreement comes from politicians and a few hacks taking money from energy companies.

But heck. The tobacco companies can still find people that claim their product doesn't cause cancer. Do you want to use that as another example? I hope not.

OGGOB wrote:
"My hope was to point out the absurdity of the combative nature of the opposing sides of this issue."

Where's the absurdity? There is a larger gap between science and theology than there is between Roman Catholocism and Protestantism and they warred with each other and slaughtered people for hundreds of years. More than between Shia and Sunni Islam and they are blowing each other up with bombs over it.

It is time for those capable of rational thinking to prevail upon those that need the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy to get them through their day.

DA, be careful. You said:

"Well actually tell my great great great great great great grandchildren. They certainly won't agree anytime before that."

I'm sure nothing will unite Christians, Jews and Muslims quicker than an organised and growing atheist movement!

DA Morgan

This very forum has already highlighted the disagrements that are occurring in the scientific community in respect to global warming. Perhaps, not that it is occurring but moreso as to why it is occurring. Manmade vs natural processes.

Also, do not suggest that science is an unwilling participant or naive victim, to political force or corrupt practise. Greed is an egalitarian and forceful motive that freely transcends religious, secular, and scientific affiliations.

terry wrote:
"I'm sure nothing will unite Christians, Jews and Muslims quicker than an organised and growing atheist movement!"

True: But as soon as they get done throwing stones and tantrums about us ... they'll be back to throwing stones at each other.

TU wrote:
"This very forum has already highlighted the disagrements that are occurring in the scientific community"

This very forum is, I am sorry to say, not a reliable place to find out what serious scientists think about anything. Hit the websites for NOAA, UW, CalTech, UCLA, Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. You'll find no disagreement worthy of mention.

TU wrote:
"do not suggest that science is an unwilling participant"

I'm not suggesting it. I am stating it as an unequivocal fact.

You are mistaking the greed of a few individuals with the practice of serious science. Not every minister is a Jerry Falwell and not every scientist is whoring for the almighty dollar.

DA Morgan

I have worked for years with serious scientists, and I am aware of their frailties, including my own. Much like other humans, they fart, they burp, and dare I say - they are driven by the same insecurities that confront us all.

From the 1st post in this thread: "Secondly, why is evolution so heavily clung to without scientific proof?"

This is yet another anti-evolution thread.

A more interesting question is why do people cling to beliefs about our origin completely demolished at least forty years ago? Perhaps someone has some ideas?

The belief has not been completely demolished otherwise the discussions would not be continuing. There are two beliefs in opposition and each has yet to move closer to this way, or that way. How would Game Theory handle this situation, let me see.

We have disagreement between two bodies of people.

The first body consists of the best informed, most brilliant minds alive today.

The second body consists of people who refuse to do any actual homework on the subject.

The fact that the second body is larger than the first is not relevant.

"If a million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing."
-- Anatole France

TU wrote:
"I have worked for years with serious scientists"

And I was one when I started my career. Individuals are humans. Science is not an individual and not so easily subverted. Try as he might even the President of the United States has been unable to subvert science.

A Nuclear Arsenal is a political subversion of Science. Unless, of course, you apply the principles of Game Theory to the reasoning.

A nuclear arsenal is an application of science that you can applaud or condemn. It's not false science, though. The nukes don't cease to exist just because people don't like them or consider them immoral.

TU: So far, based upon the historical perspective, nuclear arsenals have saved far more lives than they have destroyed.

Not one person has been harmed by one since 1945.

Perhaps you have have them confused with RPG7s or IEDs or AK47s or baseball bats.

Perhaps an easy mistake to make.