Are scientists really smart? New LHC.

[SomeRandom]

Will the plan to build the next SUPER LHC collider cost no penny to the poor people? No. It is the money, which is taken from the poor. The mystery of Dark Matter does not need XXL LHC to begin with, because I have solved the mystery in my paper using the already present experimental/observational evidence.

Again not their job. I don’t criticise a dock worker for not giving life saving medical treatment to others.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus Christ was speaking Absolute Truth.

Be so kind as to set out the words you're referring to attributed to Jesus which in your view are Absolute Truth. I've never seen a statement that's absolutely true.

He was murdered by His own society.

No, you completely misunderstand.

The stories agree that Jesus was charged and put on trial and when it was his turn to speak, offered no defense. That's not murder, it's due process of its kind.

The NT accounts make it plain that from the start the whole point of his mission was his dying, so the whole thing played out in accordance with his wishes.

You'll recall in that in Jesus Christ, Superstar, Judas complains bitterly that Jesus has used him, set him up. That's what the gospels say too.

 

[questfortruth]

Be so kind as to set out the words you're referring to attributed to Jesus which in your view are Absolute Truth. I've never seen a statement that's absolutely true.
No, you completely misunderstand.

The stories agree that Jesus was charged and put on trial and when it was his turn to speak, offered no defense. That's not murder, it's due process of its kind.

The NT accounts make it plain that from the start the whole point of his mission was his dying, so the whole thing played out in accordance with his wishes.

You'll recall in that in Jesus Christ, Superstar, Judas complains bitterly that Jesus has used him, set him up. That's what the gospels say too.

1. God is holy by the definition of holiness.
2. Jesus Christ is God.
Thus, it was a terrible crime to murder Him.

 

[blü 2]

1. God is holy by the definition of holiness.

Perhaps, but where's the absolute statement you were referring to?

2. Jesus Christ is God.

He says in all four gospels and in Paul that he is NOT God, and never once says that he is, so maybe it's time you checked what your bible actually says?

Thus, it was a terrible crime to murder Him.

All the stories are clear. He wasn't murdered. He wanted to be condemned to death so when at his trial he could have spoken up he remained silent. It was ALWAYS his plan to die.

Again, where's that absolute statement you mentioned?

 

[Father Heathen]

You couldn't possibly fail your quest any harder.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, he wanted people to follow him but only 12 chose to do so, and they too deserted him when the time came. He knew he was a failure. He had dreams of a kingdom. I think from his mother's side, he was in the line of David.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1. Due to methodological naturalism there is no God in science.
2. God is Love and Wisdom, and the Spirit of Love and Wisdom is God.
Conclusion: scientists are not loving and not truly smart.

I'm going to say some harsh things. You have spoken carelessly against Scientists and have accused them of many things and have I think poorly represented Christ in doing so.

• Your OP seems disrespectful to God through its criticism of Scientists who are part of God's creation. Can you bless God while cursing people? This seems opposed to Christian scripture. James makes this argument.
  
• Your OP seems idolatrous to me, because it upholds your standard as the standard and as if it were God's. Try injecting humility into it instead of claiming to know. "He who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know."
  
• To me it also has a strange definition for holiness. It appears you have followed a tangential connotation to extremes and away from the curve. Holiness refers to the separation of the Jews from the mundane, the backward, the doings of violence and of ignorance, a separation accomplished through their unique practices both physical and mental...practices which Christians do not practice completely. For us holiness is, however, also obtained through effort both mental and physical, growing fruits of the spirit, being different in spiritual ways. It is not magic or achieved through belief alone but through commitment and effort ending in personal transformation. This transformation though is the work of God and can be performed in a Scientist or through Science even. If you don't agree with that no wonder you are wasting time complaining about Scientists and worrying about their prattle. If God can make a believer from a rock then a Scientist can be one easily.
  
• To me it also slanders anyone who truly trying to avoid assumptions in their study. They don't accept your assumptions, your words, so you assume they are attacking you. Jesus is quoted to say "Whoever is not against us is for us." Why don't you say that?
  
• While complaining that Scientists are godless, it denies God's ability to influence them; because you seem to think God needs you to prophesy and to defeat Science. "If Baal be a god let him defend himself," and that goes both ways. If God be God, then perhaps God will defend God. Anything else seems to go against the test of who is really God. If God cannot defend himself, then there is no point, anyway. Who do you think stopped the communists in the end? USA? No, I doubt it was the USA. Priests? No I doubt the priests did. Who did? God? Who else could have? Yet you seem to imply that God cannot deal with Science if it opposes God. God can, and perhaps Science is also a part of God just as you and I are. What if in opposing Science you are opposing God?
  
• To me your post stops little children, as Jesus warns not to do. "Let them come to me" he is quoted to say; but your OP says these Scientists must first pass a test by you to reach God. These Scientists are not children to you but 'Godless' in opposition to God! No one can oppose God, so take care you do not find a millstone about your neck.
  
• Jesus is quoted to say "You don't know where the wind comes from or where it is going. So it is with anyone born of the spirit." Please curb these continual worries about Science and scientists. If they are of God you won't be able to stop them. If they are not then they will fade away.

 

[SkepticThinker]

#2 Needs to be demonstrated. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. God is holy by the definition of holiness.
2. Jesus Christ is God.
Thus, it was a terrible crime to murder Him.

If he wasn't murdered, then he couldn't have died for everyone's sins and Christianity would be meaningless, no?

 

[questfortruth]

Your OP seems disrespectful

Thank you. I have some regrets, and so I have deleted some wrong parts. You could reread it if you are interested.

 

[Valjean]

Will the plan to build the next SUPER LHC collider cost no penny to the poor people? No. It is the money, which "should be" taken from the poor. The mystery of Dark Matter does not need XXL LHC to begin with, because I have solved the mystery in my paper using the already present experimental/observational evidenc

Will the knowledge gained yield social benefits in the future, like previous "ridiculous" studies where an immediate, direct effect isn't obvious?
Sometimes Band-Aids aren't the best treatment for a problem.

Do not use strange words, explain it to me in simple words. I do not need a definition of syllogism, I need to see problems in my text. Otherwise, it is trolling, and not a problem.

Anyone who doesn't know what a syllogism is is either still in middle school or abysmally ignorant. Someone who doesn't know what a syllogism is likely does not know how to think logically, recognize evidence or draw conclusions from it. Worse, he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

They are not godless when they are in Church or in their home. But they are godless in the sense, that science is godless. In other words, Dr. Bob, seeing as a scientist is like an atheist, but the same Bob, seeing as the helper of the poor elderly people, is Christian. This is like bi-polarity disorder.

Auto mechanics and bricklayers are similarly 'godless'. God and religion don't enter into their disciplines. Why do you single out science?

The scientists, who have Christianity as the most important hobby, are "loving and smart" not as scientists, but as Christians. As scientists, they follow the professional rules of research conduction.

What's your point? "Most important hobby?" What does that mean?
Scientists don't concern themselves with the supernatural. By nature, it can't be investigated, so is not within the purview of science.

1. God is holy by the definition of holiness.
2. Jesus Christ is God.
Thus, it was a terrible crime to murder Him.

These premises are based on what, exactly? [do you even know what a premise is?]
What does any of this have to do with science?

 

[Clara Tea]

"God is Love and Wisdom."

And Christians (God's followers) made war on Iraq, and a torture camp in Guantanamo. Mankind strives for perfection but falls far short.

 

[Clara Tea]

Yes, scientists are smart. That is, they memorized information. But some don't use critical thinking. Critical thinking is supposed to be used by judges who have to evaluate which person is lying. One can't merely absorb all that he hears without verifying whether it is true or not. Theists, too, memorize, often without questioning (questioning might be construed as blasphemy). Theists must swallow everything that they are told and they are too afraid to ask if it is right.

Sometimes scientists can do dumb things. For example, a scientist might try to extract energy of tidal forces from an orbiting moon. I don't mean just harnessing the tides in the ocean, but actually slowing the orbit of the moon. This might cause the moon to fall out of orbit and hit earth.

The moral to the story is: "When the moon hits your eye, like a biga pizza pie, that's a moron."

 

[cladking]

To me it also slanders anyone who truly trying to avoid assumptions in their study.

It's not possible to not make assumptions.

Those who claim to are merely rejecting one set or series of assumptions in favor of another.

I'm not even certain I can agree that scientists make fewer assumptions than theists. One believes they can see reality in experiment and the other they can see reality through "God".

I believe we're all wrong and that most assumptions are, at best, only correct in a left handed sort of way. Many assumptions are just wrong. We append all knowledge to our own unique assumptions and accept as real those facts and ideas that fit with our assumptions.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's not possible to not make assumptions.

Those who claim to are merely rejecting one set or series of assumptions in favor of another.

I'm not even certain I can agree that scientists make fewer assumptions than theists. One believes they can see reality in experiment and the other they can see reality through "God".

I believe we're all wrong and that most assumptions are, at best, only correct in a left handed sort of way. Many assumptions are just wrong. We append all knowledge to our own unique assumptions and accept as real those facts and ideas that fit with our assumptions.

Let me clarify what I mean. In scientific work the researcher should be explicit about what their assumptions are, know what they are assuming and avoid further assumptions. That is, they should be trusting not philosophy but the facts as much as possible.

In another thread on a very closely related topic Thursday you have said "...What I said was that people blindly accept the premises and beliefs that underlie science or are widely believed to underlie science..." How much can we trust science? post#175

I am not referring to such assumptions by the public. Scientific research involves stating what your assumptions are and avoiding any others. Some people aren't good at that, but that's what it involves. It involves avoiding assumptions and stating what your assumptions are. Now...if the public assumes Science results are true with belief and with adoration that is something else. I'm not talking about that in my post.

 

[Valjean]

Let me clarify what I mean. In scientific work the researcher should be explicit about what their assumptions are, know what they are assuming and avoid further assumptions. That is, they should be trusting not philosophy but the facts as much as possible.

In another thread on a very closely related topic Thursday you have said "...What I said was that people blindly accept the premises and beliefs that underlie science or are widely believed to underlie science..." How much can we trust science? post#175

I am not referring to such assumptions by the public. Scientific research involves stating what your assumptions are and avoiding any others. Some people aren't good at that, but that's what it involves. It involves avoiding assumptions and stating what your assumptions are. Now...if the public assumes Science results are true with belief and with adoration that is something else. I'm not talking about that in my post.

But. isn't science the epitome of critical thinking and analysis? Aren't the facts the theorems are based on carefully researched? Aren't all theorems published for others to criticize? Isn't actively trying to disprove facts, conclusions and theorems; to find flaws in them, part of the process?
Doesn't science yield the best conclusions, with the highest confidence levels, of any method? Aren't scientific theories the gold standard; the epitome of human knowledge?

 

[Brickjectivity]

But. isn't science the epitome of critical thinking and analysis? Aren't the facts the theorems are based on carefully researched? Aren't all theorems published for others to criticize? Isn't actively trying to disprove facts, conclusions and theorems; to find flaws in them, part of the process?
Doesn't science yield the best conclusions, with the highest confidence levels, of any method? Aren't scientific theories the gold standard; the epitome of human knowledge?

Ideally, yes; and Science has had a very good run in places, but that's Science for researchers who work. The public is not so thorough, and while we may question it we don't put in the hours of work required for our words to have weight. Just coughing up alternative theories is not work. You have to have produced data in order to show that you can criticize it. You have to show you can do the Math in order to criticize it. You have to work, or you're just shooting at holes in the yard. Why should a Biologist stop what they are doing to hear my criticism of biological understanding since I don't do anything with it myself? That wouldn't make sense. They'll consider the opinion of someone who has done the work of learning everything and practicing it. That person's criticism has weight.

 

[cladking]

Let me clarify what I mean. In scientific work the researcher should be explicit about what their assumptions are, know what they are assuming and avoid further assumptions. That is, they should be trusting not philosophy but the facts as much as possible.

In another thread on a very closely related topic Thursday you have said "...What I said was that people blindly accept the premises and beliefs that underlie science or are widely believed to underlie science..." How much can we trust science? post#175

I am not referring to such assumptions by the public. Scientific research involves stating what your assumptions are and avoiding any others. Some people aren't good at that, but that's what it involves. It involves avoiding assumptions and stating what your assumptions are. Now...if the public assumes Science results are true with belief and with adoration that is something else. I'm not talking about that in my post.

I really don't disagree with you.

However I do maintain there are premises inherent in the thinking of scientists that aren't necessarily believed by others AND more importantly there are premises imparted by language and the ways our brains work that are common to all people. In the former case is the belief that reality can be modeled mathematically and in the latter is the belief that reason and logic can lead us straight to the truth.

Any route to the truth NECESSARLY passes through experiment because "reason" and "logic" as we define them don't really exist and can't exist (incidentally I don't believe "intelligence" or "smart" exists either).

I don't believe reality can be modeled using our mathematics. It merely seems to be because math and reality both reflect logic which underlies all reality. Any "modelling" of reality using our math would require an "infinite" number of "infinitely" complex simultaneous equations. And, of course, we still don't even know most of the variables in these equations much less much less their values.

We believe we know so much because we accumulate knowledge generationally and use models as a sort of mnemonic to remember it all. But we all necessarily build models of what we believe to be true. We compare sensory input to these models and rarely notice anomalies so life itself, consciousness itself, reinforces these models and the "beliefs" that created them. The fact that the primary determinant of most modelling in most scientists is experiment changes NONE of these considerations. There are still premises which either have not been checked or can not be checked that underlie everything we each believe and our perception of reality.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I really don't disagree with you.

However I do maintain there are premises inherent in the thinking of scientists that aren't necessarily believed by others AND more importantly there are premises imparted by language and the ways our brains work that are common to all people. In the former case is the belief that reality can be modeled mathematically and in the latter is the belief that reason and logic can lead us straight to the truth.

About me you'd be right, but this belief of mine was not taught to me in my science courses. I do think reality is Mathematical, but I'm not a scientist. I'm just guessing about reality. Science appears to be agnostic about it.

There is a video series about whether Math actually models reality or what, because its not a settled question either for scientists or pure mathematicians. 9 Videos interviewing 8 famous Mathematicians about reality

Any route to the truth NECESSARLY passes through experiment because "reason" and "logic" as we define them don't really exist and can't exist (incidentally I don't believe "intelligence" or "smart" exists either).

I agree. Logic comes from the fact that we consider some things to be unthinkable, so emotions can influence what we think is logical. Its utility comes from the general agreement among people. We tend to agree that A cannot also be B, so this creates a basis for a philosophy of logic, a common way to reach common conclusions. It has its limits.

I don't believe reality can be modeled using our mathematics. It merely seems to be because math and reality both reflect logic which underlies all reality. Any "modelling" of reality using our math would require an "infinite" number of "infinitely" complex simultaneous equations. And, of course, we still don't even know most of the variables in these equations much less much less their values.

We believe we know so much because we accumulate knowledge generationally and use models as a sort of mnemonic to remember it all. But we all necessarily build models of what we believe to be true. We compare sensory input to these models and rarely notice anomalies so life itself, consciousness itself, reinforces these models and the "beliefs" that created them. The fact that the primary determinant of most modelling in most scientists is experiment changes NONE of these considerations. There are still premises which either have not been checked or can not be checked that underlie everything we each believe and our perception of reality.

I think our reality including space and time exists in a subset of Mathematical relations, but that is just me thinking out loud. I've go no way to test that idea, nor is there any reason to make a scientific hypothesis out of it. Its only a pretty idea in my head that for me lets me put to rest questions about existence. I do still reconsider those questions, but I don't feel that I have zero answers for them. There could be no answers. We may not be able to even formulate the right questions.

 

[metis]

But. isn't science the epitome of critical thinking and analysis? Aren't the facts the theorems are based on carefully researched? Aren't all theorems published for others to criticize? Isn't actively trying to disprove facts, conclusions and theorems; to find flaws in them, part of the process?
Doesn't science yield the best conclusions, with the highest confidence levels, of any method? Aren't scientific theories the gold standard; the epitome of human knowledge?

Hear, hear!