Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Addendum:

While neither "god" nor "spirit" are susceptible to scientific scrutiny, faith, being a neurological activity, is.

(Faith is not the same thing as "belief." People can't help their beliefs. Their faith, otoh, is something they have to keep telling themselves is true despite whatever the evidence happens to be.)

.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF, Maybe I am dumb, but I tried to read the following:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, grabs my attention. Admittedly, it could be my fault.

Meanwhile, if you are an atheist, would you mind telling me:
How come? And, what kind of atheist are you? And, are you certain you know what I mean when I speak of 'G?D'?


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
revlgking wrote:
"Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, grabs my attention."

No duh!


DA Morgan
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, grabs my attention. Admittedly, it could be my fault."

I know what that's like. I wanted to go to Juliard, but I didn't like practicing music.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF, I took the time and read the K.R. Popper article, Science as Falsification, very slowly and more than once.

Then I took the time and read Marx's theory of history, slowly, and more than once:
http://sfr-21.org/history.html
[I could not find anyone participating in the discussions forum.HMMM!!!]

I found both articles very obscure. I find that even the title of the KRP article obscure.

BTW, over the years I have tried to read Das Capital. Too obscure, for me. The same is true of the literature on social credit.

Could it be that all theories that do not work have one thing in common: they are obscure?




Last edited by Revlgking; 02/07/07 06:30 AM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I hate to say it guys but this post seems to have gone back to the dogs, er, gods. I'm sure there are other threads where we can talk god. This one's economics. Some time back Revlgking asked:

"4. What are some of the best books and studies on what our eating so much animal protein is doing to our health and the ecology?"

Now that is economics. The Upper Paleolithic economy of Northern Eurasia seems to have involved eating nothing but meat. Eskimos living a traditional existence evidently still do. I'd guess most of us descend from people involved in the Eurasiatic Upper Paleolithic. Therefore it's fair to say most of us have evolved to cope with a diet rich in meat. So what's the problem?

But on the subject of god TheFallibleFiend wrote:

"(Faith is not the same thing as "belief." People can't help their beliefs. Their faith, otoh, is something they have to keep telling themselves is true despite whatever the evidence happens to be.)"

That's a very usefull distinction TFF. Thanks for that. We form beliefs as we grow up. We adopt a faith.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Could it be that all theories that do not work have one thing in common: they are obscure?"

That's part of the problem. Generally atheists consider religion-peddlers to be obscurantists. Depends on what we mean by obscure though. Some very worthwhile things do take effort to understand, but they can be understood to those who are willing to invest the time - thermodynamics, information theory, rocket science - all of them are very understandable. Each would be thought obscure by the lay person on first blush, and yet each is amenable to assimilation to the person who studies hard enough.
(Religion, otoh, epitomizes obscurantism.)

This is what Popper was trying to address. Marx and many others claimed (and continue to claim) that their ideas are "scientific" and so Popper naturally wondered "What is that makes a theory scientific?" That is called the "problem of demarcation." In the process of trying to solve this problem, he addressed the problem of induction raised by Hume centuries previously. That is, he came up with a deductive justification for science by rephrasing Hume's problem. It's a little confusing at first, but it's not THAT confusing. My daughters learned the basics of falsificationism in 7th grade. (No kidding. I was quite surprised to learn this.)

Over the millennia, the eminence of various groups have waxed and wained. Once "Knowledge" of the Cosmos rested in the minds of priests and kings. Their claim to knowledge was pretty much accepted on faith. Some things they could support, but others, they could not. With the rise of science, the priests have progressively lost standing. More people began to see the priests as the Great Oz chanting, "do not look behind the curtain."

People began - rightly or wrongly - to actually trust the results of science. Most of them don't understand it, not because they "can't" but because they're too lazy to put in the effort. But the knowledge is out there for anyone who is willing to study. The fact remains, though, that people tacitly accept "scientific" as a sort of Underwriters Laboratory seal of approval. It doesn't mean the "theory" is right, but it implies that it has been through some sort of rigorous "testing."

But the priests are jealous. Increasingly people are rejecting the old ways and the priests are losing their following. Their coffers are dwindling as is their authority. And so they are now trying to sell religion as "scientific." They put the label on it and the unwary are hoodwinked. Works for anyone trying to sell something. Nowadays all sort of products are marketed by giving them scientific sounding names: vehicles, electronics, hair products, religion. They want to associate their brand with the science label - and they are quite successful.

There have been and are many religionists, including some "intellectuals" who have promoted comically stupid ideas as scientific:

Arthur Conan Doyle promoted mediums and the existence of fairies.
He was much better about writing about logic than practicing it, as is obvious to anyone who has read Sherlock Holmes. Doyle was a brilliant writer to be able to create the illusion of logic without the substance of it.

Edgar Cayce continually used scientific-sounding, quasi-educated jargon to convey the "knowledge" he acquired in his "trances." Truly educated people would view his ramblings the same way they would the verbal acrobatics of Slip Mahoney (from the Bowery Boys).

Marx ... well, I think Popper does an adequate job of refuting him.

Various New Age enthusiasts - continually using words like "force" and "energy" among others as if the addition of this sort of verbiage adds credence to nonsensical ramblings.

Many religious obscurantists also like to promote their unique access to the "wisdom of the ages." Merlin knew things we didn't know; so did the Egyptians (pyramids have great powers!); so did the Chinese. This last one is funny. Modern anti-racists and faux multi-culturalists complain about how westerners objectify asians by spreading the view that asians are "mysterious." Of all the tripe to come out of the multi-cultural movement (and I *am* a multi-culturalist, just not in the sense of these pseudo-intellectual twits), this is the stupidest. For CENTURIES, Chinese (and other asian) cultures have promoted their mysteriousness - and NOW their bonehead descendants are pissed off that that the west bought into the blather. These are the wages of obscurantism.



Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Fallible. your ideas seem to belong more to "knock the revs" thread but they remind me of the moment in "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" when the multitude believed the Deep Thought Computer was about to tell them the answer to the question of the meaning of life. Two philosophers burst in and (with some deletions) the conversation goes like this:

"I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!"

"You just let the machines get on with adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much."

"That's right," shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Sums up the difference between religion and science? Mind you this post probably belongs on the "Science Fiction" thread. But I love the rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty bit.

Last edited by terrytnewzealand; 02/07/07 09:04 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

'your ideas seem to belong more to "knock the revs" thread'

I'm not sure. I'm trying to draw a distinction between scientific inquiry and non-scientific inquiry. There entire method is completely different. A key factor is the ability to prove a theory wrong, if it is wrong.

It's utterly impossible to ever disprove the general existence of God with science. No matter what experiment you perform, you could always come back with, "Well, God chose not to do it that way." A thing that explains every conceivable outcome doesn't explain anything.

Because scientifically derived conclusions carry some weight in our society, we need to be very clear in how we distinguish science from non-science.

It has taken us thousands of years of recorded history and 10's of thousands of years of human activity to develop what we call science. The Method and Philosophy of science are among the most precious things we have. It is not something we should lightly permit to become conflated with other erroneous and error-prone kinds of "knowledge."



Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF, you write
Quote:
Generally atheists consider religion-peddlers to be obscurantists.
I am no fan of obscurant religionists, or theologies. This is why I am not a tradional theist.

You mention, "Some very worthwhile things do take effort to understand, but they can be understood to those who are willing to invest the time - thermodynamics, etc...."

I accept this to be so. For example, I do not understand calculus, or the physics ot television. However, I know and have some confidence in the fact that there are those who do. Television manufacturers do make TV's. Engineers do build bridges and other marvellous structures with the help of maths.

I have a theological concept which I think of as transparent. I call this concept G?D. I am testing this concept, on a daily basis, For me, it works. I do not pray in the traditional way, because it does not work.

BTW, I find the kind of dialogue offered above, quite stimulating, and civilized, even where I disagree, which is not all that often. I always try to look for points of agreement.

BACK TO ECONOMICS: Terry you mention my question:
"What are some of the best books and studies on what our eating so much animal protein is doing to our health and the ecology?"
Have you heard of DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET By Frances Moore Lappe? (1979)
WHO HAS HEARD OF THE ECONOMIST BERNARD LIETAER?
http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4147
Also check out http://www.transaction.net
and http://www.torontodollar.com
backed by the Mayor of Toronto


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
OK. So is economics science or do economists accept rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty? Many economic theories have been proved not to achieve what they were apparently introduced to achieve. However this may have more to do with the fact that we were misled as to the true motive for their introduction.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
I think of economics as a social science.

BTW, I have a strong feeling that we have been conned by those who create money out of OUR assets and then loan it to us and call it credit.

Actually, all fiat money is debt, to us, created by the banks. The banks show it on their books as an asset, to them.

Why are we afraid to create money as we need it and can and will back it with our own assets--goods and services we can produce? It is not illegal, as long as you do claim it is legal tender.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"I am no fan of obscurant religionists, or theologies. This is why I am not a tradional theist."

But theism, traditional or not, is the epitome of obscurantism. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but matter-of-fact.

"I do not understand calculus, or the physics ot television."
Very good. You do not understand these things. Do you attempt to apply them to your philosophy or your theism?

"However, I know and have some confidence in the fact that there are those who do. Television manufacturers do make TV's. Engineers do build bridges and other marvellous structures with the help of maths."
Excellent! You don't have to know how to build a bridge or make a television in order to use them. Let's say that I proposed the following topic of discussion, "Bridge design proves atheists are correct," but I had not studied engineering in college. (In fact, I have studied engineering, and took a courses in statics and materials science, but that still doesn't qualify me to comment on bridge design. Let's just say I have zero background.) Now, Dan and I don't get along, him being so religious an all. Let's say Dan doesn't have a background in bridge design either, but Dan actually does have some modest background in engineering. Dan has had numerous classes in materials science and statics and physics. Moreover, Dan has held a position of some responsibility in a firm that builds bridges and has done extensive reading on the subject, from a historical, a technical, and a theoretical perspective. Dan reads my first few sentences and realizes that I'm missing something. So Dan refers me to something that will help me bridge the gap in my understanding. I come back relatively quickly to Dan and say, "Dan, nothing in that reference appealed to me, but I'm going to persist in making my argument anyway."
How should Dan respond to me?

"I have a theological concept which I think of as transparent."
I'm not sure what you mean by transparent here.

"I call this concept G?D."
Still confused.

"I am testing this concept, on a daily basis,"
Are these tests that could conceivable disprove the existence of God?

"For me, it works."
I'm very happy for you. No kidding. No sarcasm. I am happy for you. But science isn't about what works for individuals.

"I do not pray in the traditional way, because it does not work."
It doesn't work for you. There are people for whom it does work (after a fashion).

"BTW, I find the kind of dialogue offered above, quite stimulating, and civilized, even where I disagree, which is not all that often."
I can imagine. I congratulate you for not getting upset with me. I know I can be very irritating at times. But I'd rather be irritating than patronizing.

"I always try to look for points of agreement.":
That's a fine quality in a human being.


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
...theism (writes TFF), traditional or not, is the epitome of obscurantism.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but matter-of-fact.
I, too, like being matter-of-fact and non-confrontational. Obviously, we have things in common.

I AM, AT LEAST, THREE COMPONENTS OF BEING
Therefore, let me (LGK) put it this way: Because I think of myself as a human being and, therefore, aware that I am aware, I think of myself as being made up of, at least, three components (essential and integrated parts) as follows:

1. I have a physical body--which is not unlike the hardware of my computer
2. I have a physical brain--not unlike the software of my computer.

3. However, I think of myself as being a mind, a consciousness, a soul, a spirit--not just matter, however important--which, though very weak, has will-power.

Unlike animals, and certain animal-like, so-called human beings, I know that I have the power to make a choice.

When I sit as my PC, I tell it what do. I have a strong feeling that if I put garbage in, I will get garbage out. "As I sow, so will I reap" as Paul put it, in Galatians.

As a human mind, whatever...I am free to use this weak power to programme the software and harness the hardware I possess, and to get things done, which I choose to get done.

Weak power may be a weak, but it is still a power. It is, like the trigger which triggers atomic explosions.

Here, I left out the story about Dan.

BTW, your question: How should Dan respond? confuses me (LGK).


I (LGK) wrote: "I have a theological concept which I think of as transparent."

You (TFF) responded: "I'm not sure what you mean by transparent, here."

Let me put it this way: G?D is the symbol I use to refer to total universal and all-encompassing existence--the total matrix of all that IS.

If you can think of anything outside the matrix of existence, as I think of it, and demonstate that it is beyond what I include, then I will agree to include it.

G?D is the symbol I use to cover that which is over and above, all that can be covered.


"I call this concept G?D."

Still confused? Let me know, and ask questions.

"I am testing this concept, on a daily basis,"

You ask, "Are these tests that could conceivable disprove the existence of God?"

YES!!! If it doesn't work, it does not exist.

I WILL LEAVE THE FOLLOWING FOR COMMENT, LATER:

Quote:
I'm very happy for you. No kidding. No sarcasm. I am happy for you. But science isn't about what works for individuals.

"I do not pray in the traditional way, because it does not work."

It doesn't work for you. There are people for whom it does work (after a fashion).

"BTW, I find the kind of dialogue offered above, quite stimulating, and civilized, even where I disagree, which is not all that often."

I can imagine.

I congratulate you for not getting upset with me. I know I can be very irritating at times. But I'd rather be irritating than patronizing.

"I always try to look for points of agreement.":
That's a fine quality in a human being.



Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
The posting seems to have dried up, so I'll just add a quick note about standard definitions of economics.

According to the Encyclopedias Britannica and Encarta, the study of economics draws on knowledge from many spheres, including sociology, psychology, anthropology, ethics, history and, of course, mathematics. So, the short answer to the topic question is:

"Yes, it's a science - a social science".

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
I agree. And I think the nature and function of our economy is too important to be left to the so-called experts.

Sure we need the experts, providing they are humble enough to involve and work with the philsophers, spiritual leaders, the artists and just ordinary people trying to make a living.

Just this morning, on the CBC, Toronto, I heard a "money" expert comment on the third attempt by the Americans to introduce a dollar coin. Over and over again, he made the point that the creation and circulation of money is affected, very much by psychological factors. This why the first two attempts the Americans made to introduce a dollar coin failed.

Then he said: "The creation and use of money depends, highly, on
human faith in it. Every time someone gives you a dollar, and you take it, you do so in the belief that another person will take it from you when you need to spend it. Of itself, that dollar has no intrinsic value."

I call this a pneumatological factor



G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"Sure we need the experts, providing they are humble enough to involve and work with the philsophers, spiritual leaders, the artists and just ordinary people trying to make a living."

I don't *quite* agree with that, but it's close to something I would agree with. I don't think experts need to be humble.

If economics is going to be actual science, then it economists need to give us their science completely unvarnished by human concerns; however, policy makers and those who implement policy need to understand that a good economy isn't an end unto itself. Sometimes we have to have a less than perfect economy in order to promote other human interests. The advice that economists can give is, "If you do A, then B is likely to happen." Policy makers should then hypothetically consult sociologists, "If B happens, what effect will that have on my constituents?" Ideally , you would get several economists, policy makers, and sociologists in the room at the same time to discuss a given problem or range of problems. This is what's called a conference.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
If economics is going to be actual science, then it economists need to give us their science completely unvarnished by human concerns;

I think the human concerns must be part of the equations.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Sometimes we have to have a less than perfect economy in order to promote other human interests.

That's an interesting point. If it's true, I should think other human interests are being well promoted! Can you elaborate?
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Ideally , you would get several economists, policy makers, and sociologists in the room at the same time to discuss a given problem or range of problems. This is what's called a conference.

I think it must be true that the science of economics is so broad-spectrum that interdisciplinary effort is required to provide good data and good results. Does anyone here know how it actually works?

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Revlgking wrote:

"Just this morning, on the CBC, Toronto, I heard a "money" expert comment on the third attempt by the Americans to introduce a dollar coin. Over and over again, he made the point that the creation and circulation of money is affected, very much by psychological factors. This why the first two attempts the Americans made to introduce a dollar coin failed."

Ah. But the economy is about much more than just money. All human groups anthropologists have studied have some means of circulating goods and services.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Terry, you comment "Ah. But the economy is about much more than just money."

Please, elaborate.

"All human groups anthropologists have studied' you write, "have some means of circulating goods and services."

Again I say, elaborate.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5