Darwin's Illusion

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You can't say something is impossible because you haven't seen it and you know of no way it could happen.

It's already been pointed out to you that that is not what was said.

What is the basis to define a morality base?

For me, it's my conscience and its intuitions. The religious bristle at such a thought.

If every individual decides on a base for himself, morality will essentially stay relative.

It always has, and that's just fine. There will always be those trying to cajole one into conformity with their religion's version, but they don't have the individual's interests at heart, and what they offer is flawed.

 

[cladking]

As you've been told, there is no known mechanism to make it flood the surface or return to the inner earth. There is also water in hydrated minerals, but that won't be flooding the earth, either.

This isn't like you to twist words or play word games. You are suggesting that with no known mechanism it can not happen.

This is what is unscientific.

 

[Audie]

This isn't like you to twist words or play word games. You are suggesting that with no known mechanism it can not happen.

This is what is unscientific.

Talk about word twisting!
You even admit to it, with how
it is "suggested" that something
cannot happen.

Science does probabilities, not absolutes

The water in any hydrated crystals
can be removed, and quite simply-
with a lot of heat.

Now, a man might drown in a limestone
quarry because the water suddenly came out
of the limestone.

It would be strange, it would violate certain
physical laws, and the new principles could give us endless energy but hey- it could happen.

I think any corner would be rightly accused of being unscientific if he said it couldn't happen.

Don't you agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This isn't like you to twist words or play word games. You are suggesting that with no known mechanism it can not happen.

This is what is unscientific.

No, without any mechanism it is a foolish belief. That does not mean "it can not happen". What believers do not realize is that if they want to claim that their myths are true then they need to show evidence for it. I know, evidence is a concept that you cannot grasp, so it all looks like magic to you.

But there are those that do understand evidence. They do use testable models in their reasoning. And you should praise whatever God that you believe in that those people exist. You would not have any oil to use if it were not for those people. You would have a very high probability of being dead because those sorts of people drive the discoveries in medicine. The lest is endless.

 

[cladking]

Believers in science rarely invent or discover new things. They are too busy lecturing and playing semantics with others.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are suggesting that with no known mechanism it can not happen.

Why would you think I said that? I happen to believe that there is no such mechanism and that therefore it cannot happen, but that's not what I wrote.

Believers in science rarely invent or discover new things. They are too busy lecturing and playing semantics with others.

True, if you mean gadgets. Most have other interests. Do you consider yourself a believer in science? Probably not given your apparent disesteem for such people.

 

[Valjean]

It's already been pointed out to you that that is not what was said.


For me, it's my conscience and its intuitions. The religious bristle at such a thought.


It always has, and that's just fine. There will always be those trying to cajole one into conformity with their religion's version, but they don't have the individual's interests at heart, and what they offer is flawed.

The religious have no incentive to develop a conscience or an internalized moral code, so they have a hard time conceiving of moral behavior in someone without a heavenly sanctioned book of rules, a watchful judge in the sky, a threat of eternal damnation and a promise of salvation from same -- as long as the rules are followed.
Moral strength should not be expected from those who choose to rely on deontological crutches.

 

[cladking]

Do you consider yourself a believer in science?

Very few believers in science ever make significant contributions to science or technology.

I thought I made this sufficiently clear in the hundreds of posts of yours to which I have responded.

Of course I don't believe in science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very few believers in science ever make significant contributions to science or technology.

I thought I made this sufficiently clear in the hundreds of posts of yours to which I have responded.

Of course I don't believe in science.

Yes, a belief in pixies is so much more satisfying.

 

[ChristineM]

Believers in science rarely invent or discover new things. They are too busy lecturing and playing semantics with others.

Interesting how you posted that on and using equipment created by believers in science

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Very few believers in science ever make significant contributions to science or technology.

I thought I made this sufficiently clear in the hundreds of posts of yours to which I have responded.

Of course I don't believe in science.

Regarding clarity, perhaps it's easier to be ambiguous than you think. Does the second sentence refer to the first or third one? Yes, we've exchanged many posts in the past, and I recall that you have some pretty independent ideas such as some iconoclastic comments on the building of the pyramids if I recall correctly. And I'm not clear what not believing in science means to you. Does that mean that one doesn't believe that the output of science such as the science of electronics or celestial mechanics are correct?

 

[Audie]

The religious have no incentive to develop a conscience or an internalized moral code, so they have a hard time conceiving of moral behavior in someone without a heavenly sanctioned book of rules, a watchful judge in the sky, a threat of eternal damnation and a promise of salvation from same -- as long as the rules are followed.
Moral strength should not be expected from those who choose to rely on deontological crutches.

It's more a way to avoid the grim spectre of thought

 

[ChristineM]

Of course I don't believe in science.

Except when using your phone, computer, the internet etc

 

[cladking]

Does that mean that one doesn't believe that the output of science such as the science of electronics or celestial mechanics are correct?

I don't believe that science is run by Peers, evidence, or the funding only of research approved by doctrine. I don't believe genius, intelligence, or hard work lie at the heart of science. I don't believe 'opinion" matters in the least whether it is held by crackpots or peers. I don't believe anyone can look and see reality whether they think they can or their fawning admirers think they can or not. I don't believe we can escape our own beliefs and prejudices to see what's right in front of our individual nor collective noses.

I further don't believe all of reality can be expressed in some simple equation and many of the aspects of reality will never be reduced to equation. It is only because reality is logic manifest and math is logic quantified that any of its aspects can be reduced to equation at all.

I don't believe that even in aggregate homo omnisciencis knows even the tiniest fraction of 1% of what can be known about the universe. or even things closer to home like the human heart.

I don't believe that with current paradigms that science will progress much further than it already has. I'm not sure I believe we can survive our technology without a dose of humility and and a better way of understanding what we already know.

I don't believe in science. Science is a tool not a means to format finance, industry, and the human heart or brain. Most who believe in science do so because they don't understand it.

 

[cladking]

I do believe only one single thing makes science work; experiment.

It works solely because it allows us to peek at some tiny aspect of reality.

But all experiment applies all the time so everything in reality must be seen in terms of all experiment.

Even here though it should not be forgotten that experiment has no meaning outside the axioms and definitions. Its meaning can be hidden by paradigms rather than shown by them. Even if you know you see only what you believe you still see only what you believe.

If you believe in science you see answers to all questions but you can't see that these answers reside within what you already believed.

Such things aren't so complex as they may seem. The problem is the way we think. Our brain is geared to see patterns but language programs it to operate circularly. You start with assumption and reason away until you arrive where you started. Only the reality disclosed by experiment can break you out of these circles.

Belief in science hides reality from you because all beliefs hide reality. Belief steers us in circles.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do believe only one single thing makes science work; experiment.

Science works through evidence.
Experiment is but one way to get evidence.

It's not the experiment itself that is meaningful. It's the evidence gained through it.
And it's just one of the ways evidence can be and is obtained.

 

[cladking]

And it's just one of the ways evidence can be and is obtained.

Sure, and with enough letters after your name and enough doting admirers you can just Look and See Science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, and with enough letters after your name and enough doting admirers you can just Look and See Science.

Making such silly statements doesn't change how science actually works.

 

[ChristineM]

Making such silly statements doesn't change how science actually works.

Where is the winner frube when you need it.

 

[cladking]

Making such silly statements doesn't change how science actually works.

YOU said "evidence" lies as the basis of science.

I said "evidence" is what you expect to see.

I said there is no science without experiment.

I am not responding to you further twisting and contorting of words.