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 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
<"Neither "God did it!" nor "It must be magic!" is an explanation. These kinds of assertions are not science; they are the opposite of science.">


The assertions are not science. But that does not mean they are incorrect.

If something can't be scientifically tested, it isn't science and science has nothing to say about it.

.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Is it dogmatic to insist that 2+2=4


2+2=4 because that is how we define 2 and 4. It is not possible to say that something is wrong when those who claim it is right actually have the power to define the terms involved.

Quote:
Is it only dogmatism that allows our society to put people in mental institutions? Or prisons?


There are those who would claim that that is correct, and they could well be right. I have been responsible for the compulsory admission of many people to psychiatric hospitals, and have refused to apply for admission for many others, even when psychiatrists have been adamant that they should be admitted. Was I always right? With hindsight I can certainly say no, not always. However, I can also say that my decisions had nothing to do with “dogmatism”.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
2+2=4 because that is how we define 2 and 4. It is not possible to say that something is wrong when those who claim it is right actually have the power to define the terms involved.


My definition of 2 is that when I move a rock I say I have moved one rock, when I move another rock I say I have moved 2 rocks, and so on. When I have moved another 2 rocks I have moved 4 rocks. Can you provide other definitions of 2 and 4 that are different and still make sense?

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Can you provide other definitions of 2 and 4 that are different and still make sense?


Of course I can't. Like all numbers, 2 and 4 are defined in such a way that they cannot have any other meaning. This is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of definition.

As such, the numbers have no meaning, or existence, outside that definition. It is, therefore, meaningless to use 2+2=4 as an example of a dogmatic attitude towards belief.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Rede, when I tried it tonight it worked. Must have been the net that night. Good video, thanks for sharing.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Good link Rede, I shall be visiting that again.

However, polarisation seems to be a very common problem. Of course there are myriads of crackpots out there, of course there are lots of people who cash in on pseudo-science, of course people with clarity of vision should seek to protect the vulnerable from the snares of charlatans; but in so doing it is all too easy to pour scorn on everything that seems not to have an explanation that fits in with the current trends in science, or with that particular branch of science that provides a livelihood for the critic. There is a strong tendency to treat everything as though it were either black or white; absolutely right or absolutely wrong.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Good link Rede, I shall be visiting that again.
I thought so too, but TFF posted that smile

I should add a few thoughts on the topic...

Beliefs are our way of constructing a view of reality, i.e. what 'is'; so, we use the word 'is' but strictly speaking we're expressing a judgement based on available data. In the scientific ideology, verifiable data are not ignored; thus a rational, logically consistent belief system emerges, in which beliefs are subject to modification as new data becomes available. So, such beliefs are not dogmatic. In non-scientific ideologies verifiable data are ignored, thus irrational, logically inconsistent beliefs arise which are necessarily dogmatic - since dogmatic beliefs lack a foundation in verifiable data, they are supported by blind faith. Contradiction to such beliefs is a threat to the stability of the faith. The beliefs of non-dogmatic scientific ideology are not threatened in such a way, but their persistence and development is threatened by the ideologies of dogmatic faith. Polarisation is inevitable.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Rede, I agree with you about science not being dogmatic, but we have to remember that there are some scientists that will take a possessive attitude to a theory. For them the theory becomes sacrosanct and they will be offended if any body questions the theory, even if the questioner is correct. Sometimes they will be so convinced of the accuracy of the theory that they will fake data to support it. Fortunately these types of activities are usually spotted before very long. This sort of thing is an unfortunate part of being human.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes, certainly, in those cases there's no ideological polarisation, just the usual flaws in human nature.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." ~Isaac Asimov, The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 01/23/12 03:39 PM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Polarisation is inevitable.


Of course it is. The trouble comes when neither pole can accept that there might be any truth or value attached to the other pole, or that there can be any middle ground.

Should we just accept "the usual flaws in human nature", or should we make a stand against these flaws?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
The problem is, facts are facts, and nonsense is nonsense. Where is the middle ground in the evolution v intelligent design issue? Or, similarly, with the claim "the moon is made of cheese" - how do you meet that halfway?

We have no choice but to live with the flaws of human nature, but we don't have to condone bad science, nor do we have to accept anti-science, pseudoscience, and quackery. Certainly a stand has to be taken (ask Richard Dawkins).


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Where is the middle ground in the evolution v intelligent design issue? Or, similarly, with the claim "the moon is made of cheese" - how do you meet that halfway?


The fact that you, or anyone else, can find examples of sense and nonsense between which there is no reasonable middle ground does not prove that we live in a Universe in which we must be able to recognise everything as being absolutely right or completely wrong.

You ask: “Where is the middle ground in the evolution v intelligent design issue?”

How about an intelligent designer who planned and set in motion the process of evolution. That might not be what I believe, but how good is the proof that such is not possible? In the absence of such absolute proof, would it not be dogmatic if I simply said: “that’s wrong.”


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Most ID advocates already largely accept evolution. Evolution is science; ID is not.

Whether some god exists is outside the scope of science. Science does not handle the supernatural. The problem comes in that ID advocates and other creationists insist that "intellectual integrity" insists that scientists accept supernatural explanations. "It must be magic" is never an explanation and it's never science; It's the opposite of science.

We don't need absolute proof to know that some assertions are either inconsistent with the facts or simple nonsense. And it's not dogmatic to insist that views that are inconsistent with science are, in fact, inconsistent with science.

Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 01/23/12 08:08 PM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
We don't need absolute proof to know that some assertions are either inconsistent with the facts or simple nonsense.


I would be inclined to agree with that, but would have to ask how you distinguish between accepting something without proof, and accepting something on faith?

Quote:
And it's not dogmatic to insist that views that are inconsistent with science are, in fact, inconsistent with science.


Obviously it would be absurd to deny such a tautology, but that is not quite the same as saying that everything that our current scientific understanding cannot explain is necessarily nonsense. That does seem to have a feeling of dogma to it.

Quote:
Science does not handle the supernatural.


If science does not handle it, on what grounds could science say it was all nonsense?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
Where is the middle ground in the evolution v intelligent design issue? Or, similarly, with the claim "the moon is made of cheese" - how do you meet that halfway?


The fact that you, or anyone else, can find examples of sense and nonsense between which there is no reasonable middle ground does not prove that we live in a Universe in which we must be able to recognise everything as being absolutely right or completely wrong.

Indeed, and it's not offered as a proof. It's intended to suggest that, as you acknowledge, there are many instances where middle ground doesn't exist. The beauty of science is, as I mentioned above, that it's beliefs are provisional and mutable; whereas superstitious/metaphysical/religious beliefs are generally very much opposed to modification, often in deadly earnest. In the latter case, every non-believer must be completely wrong.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
You ask: “Where is the middle ground in the evolution v intelligent design issue?”

How about an intelligent designer who planned and set in motion the process of evolution. That might not be what I believe, but how good is the proof that such is not possible? In the absence of such absolute proof, would it not be dogmatic if I simply said: “that’s wrong.”

It is dogmatic to declare that no god of any kind exists. Science doesn't deal with gods, except insofar as claims regarding them can be shown to be wrong by scientific means.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
To some extent we are continually returning to the point I raised about polarisation.

Obviously, polarisation is inevitable and valuable, but, so often it leads to an attitude in which it changes from saying: “A” accords with current evidence, and “B” is demonstrably wrong, to saying: everything that is not “A” must be wrong. From there it can go very easily to: everything that I cannot equate with “A” is a load of rubbish.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
BTW, in another thread I gave a personal example of an experience that might have been explained by what has become known as the stone tape effect. I was looking for a possible scientific explanation. I wonder how I should interpret the reticence of scientific posters.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Haha, some light(-humour) in the darkness. Simple home truths. Ty TFF.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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 UsokÂţ»­ľW
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