Isn't the exclusivity of Scientific Verification accepted on faith?

[cladking]

I suppose I'm drifting off topic a little but this gets to the very heart of modern beliefs. There is simply almost no difference in the beliefs of the devout and scientists. Each is holier than thou and we are all wrong about virtually everything.

We all see reality through the lens of language and can't see that the lens is kaleidoscopic. We all want to fill the gaps in our knowledge and we all do.

 

[Audie]

I suppose I'm drifting off topic a little but this gets to the very heart of modern beliefs. There is simply almost no difference in the beliefs of the devout and scientists. Each is holier than thou and we are all wrong about virtually everything.

We all see reality through the lens of language and can't see that the lens is kaleidoscopic. We all want to fill the gaps in our knowledge and we all do.

Uh, no. For one, you are playing equivocation with "beliefs".

Also-you and the "devout" are deeply into statements of facts not in evidence;
those are the very core and foundation of "belief". "Faith" and, "belief" being more or less synonyms.

Scientists, researchers of any sort on the other hand find that to be wholly unacceptable, the very opposite of doing actual research or an acceptable basis for any sort of theory.

"Opposite" and "synonymous" really are quite different and distinguishable.
Maybe giving language lessons is not for you?

And yes, we all strive to fill gaps but some dont find it adequate to just make things up. See "facts not in evidence".

Each is holier than thou and we are all wrong about virtually everything.

Except, of course, you are dead on correct about that?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I suppose I'm drifting off topic a little but this gets to the very heart of modern beliefs. There is simply almost no difference in the beliefs of the devout and scientists. Each is holier than thou and we are all wrong about virtually everything.

We all see reality through the lens of language and can't see that the lens is kaleidoscopic. We all want to fill the gaps in our knowledge and we all do.

I think many of us will be alongside Audie here, in that to compare the balancing aspect of current scientific knowledge with almost anything else is just fruitless. It's like weighing an ant against an elephant. -

 

[Audie]

I think many of us will be alongside Audie here, in that to compare the balancing aspect of current scientific knowledge with almost anything else is just fruitless. It's like weighing an ant against an elephant. -

If one weighed the practical application of "beliefs" from t he devout,
gained via inspiration and bible reading, say, against the application of
research to modern life, i dont think you'd get even an ant's worth from
the "devout".

 

[Mock Turtle]

If one weighed the practical application of "beliefs" from t he devout,
gained via inspiration and bible reading, say, against the application of
research to modern life, i dont think you'd get even an ant's worth from
the "devout".

Quite. The practical aspects of living seem to elude some.

 

[cladking]

I think many of us will be alongside Audie here, in that to compare the balancing aspect of current scientific knowledge with almost anything else is just fruitless. It's like weighing an ant against an elephant. -

The problem here is a metaphysical one. Scientific theory is real. It is simply fact that within its definitions and axioms that momentum is mass times velocity. It isn't really relevant that mass and velocity are both far more complex than anything imaginable because in the real world velocity is dependent on myriad forces that can't be measured and mass is also affected by things like relativistic considerations. But "theory" still exists and is still true within its metaphysics. What is relevant is that everyone is extrapolating the little knowledge we do have to create a complete picture. I often compare this to trying to make a rainbow out of the spectral signature of hydrogen. We know the rainbow is under there but even all the elements together does not mean that this spectrum is continuous. We are assuming that interpolation and extrapolation of theory and experiment paints a complete picture of reality and this assumption, this belief, is stopping us from seeing important and fundamental facts.


Cosmology is bogged down in the 1920's and this appears to be just about the same point where ancient science bogged down in... ...well... ...around 1920 BC. Ancient metaphysics collapsed at the Tower of Babel for other reasons though, probably.

Simply stated each individual using the software that comes from modern language believes what he chooses to believe and then acts on those beliefs until eventually becoming those beliefs. Those who "believe" in science are simply extrapolating theory to apply to the real world, and we usually do it incorrectly. This is proven by the simple fact that nobody can predict the future. Even where it concerns gross processes or short term we all have a terrible track record predicting the future.

Indeed, it is only in prediction that any science can prove itself. Deviation from theory always shows that it was theory that was wrong. Ancient science and modern science were both invented to make prediction. It is its ability to make accurate prediction that makes anything a science.

 

[cladking]

Quite. The practical aspects of living seem to elude some.

You're referring to technology, not science. Technology is a natural product of experimental science. It leads many to believe that science provides understanding and therefore all extrapolations are correct. This is false. Technology is more akin to a magic trick generated by the ability to design experiment. Indeed, most technology actually arises from serendipity or trial and error rather than experiment design.

Remember I mentioned before we employ counterweights in all sorts of machines that work because of gravity yet we still don't understand the nature of gravity. The Romans built the arch which redistributes the effects of gravity without even knowing the speed of gravity or even the acceleration due to gravity. We don't know much more about the nature of gravity than the Great Pyramid builders.

 

[Audie]

The problem here is a metaphysical one. Scientific theory is real. It is simply fact that within its definitions and axioms that momentum is mass times velocity. It isn't really relevant that mass and velocity are both far more complex than anything imaginable because in the real world velocity is dependent on myriad forces that can't be measured and mass is also affected by things like relativistic considerations. But "theory" still exists and is still true within its metaphysics. What is relevant is that everyone is extrapolating the little knowledge we do have to create a complete picture. I often compare this to trying to make a rainbow out of the spectral signature of hydrogen. We know the rainbow is under there but even all the elements together does not mean that this spectrum is continuous. We are assuming that interpolation and extrapolation of theory and experiment paints a complete picture of reality and this assumption, this belief, is stopping us from seeing important and fundamental facts.


Cosmology is bogged down in the 1920's and this appears to be just about the same point where ancient science bogged down in... ...well... ...around 1920 BC. Ancient metaphysics collapsed at the Tower of Babel for other reasons though, probably.

Simply stated each individual using the software that comes from modern language believes what he chooses to believe and then acts on those beliefs until eventually becoming those beliefs. Those who "believe" in science are simply extrapolating theory to apply to the real world, and we usually do it incorrectly. This is proven by the simple fact that nobody can predict the future. Even where it concerns gross processes or short term we all have a terrible track record predicting the future.

Indeed, it is only in prediction that any science can prove itself. Deviation from theory always shows that it was theory that was wrong. Ancient science and modern science were both invented to make prediction. It is its ability to make accurate prediction that makes anything a science.

Huh. Here I thought the problem was with your assertion of facts not in evidence.

"Ancient science" and "Ancient language" seem to be your personal inventions.

You are not convincing anyone so far that such is not the case.

BTW, science does not "prove" anything.

 

[cladking]

If one weighed the practical application of "beliefs" from t he devout,
gained via inspiration and bible reading, say, against the application of
research to modern life, i dont think you'd get even an ant's worth from
the "devout".

Practical applications, eh?

I wager some of the devout are happier and more fulfilled than some scientists.

Religious people make inventions and practice science just like scientists.

Many religious precepts are likely to be just as well founded in reality as theory. Most go back to ancient science anyway.

 

[Audie]

You're referring to technology, not science. Technology is a natural product of experimental science. It leads many to believe that science provides understanding and therefore all extrapolations are correct. This is false. Technology is more akin to a magic trick generated by the ability to design experiment. Indeed, most technology actually arises from serendipity or trial and error rather than experiment design.

Remember I mentioned before we employ counterweights in all sorts of machines that work because of gravity yet we still don't understand the nature of gravity. The Romans built the arch which redistributes the effects of gravity without even knowing the speed of gravity or even the acceleration due to gravity. We don't know much more about the nature of gravity than the Great Pyramid builders.

It leads many to believe that science provides understanding and therefore all extrapolations are correct

Really. You have some basis for this odd claim?

 

[cladking]

BTW, science does not "prove" anything.

I'm surprised you're aware of this.

Then you should also be aware that it hasn't proven there exists no God or gods. It hasn't proven anything in religion wrong and it certainly hasn't proven that theory is better able to describe or understand human nature than is religion.

 

[cladking]

It leads many to believe that science provides understanding and therefore all extrapolations are correct

That people extrapolate their beliefs is proven by the fact that everyone fills in the gaps in what they see and experience. Each person with his own unique perspective sees everything and no two people see the same thing.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You're referring to technology, not science.

Both really since the technology relies on the science. We would hardly have the first transistors without the theory behind these.

Technology is a natural product of experimental science. It leads many to believe that science provides understanding and therefore all extrapolations are correct. This is false. Technology is more akin to a magic trick generated by the ability to design experiment. Indeed, most technology actually arises from serendipity or trial and error rather than experiment design.

I don't think that is actually true. Many equations used to design technology are approximations because in essence the truer situation is just not necessary, such that various terms are often eliminated because they have little effect on the result. I'm sure those who produce such equations are well aware of this. And actually, it was the association of engineering with apparent magic that got me interested in engineering. It just fascinated me as to how they produced all the wonderful things around us. I learnt it wasn't so magical after all, and often fudges were made so as to get a result with the least effort. Not neat and clean but quick and dirty quite often.

Remember I mentioned before we employ counterweights in all sorts of machines that work because of gravity yet we still don't understand the nature of gravity. The Romans built the arch which redistributes the effects of gravity without even knowing the speed of gravity or even the acceleration due to gravity. We don't know much more about the nature of gravity than the Great Pyramid builders.

Do we need to? Surely that is the essence of common sense - just do the work required to get a result and no more. The thing is, most people just want to live their lives in a reasonable manner without having to resort to any particular thing that complicates it.

 

[Audie]

Practical applications, eh?

I wager some of the devout are happier and more fulfilled than some scientists.

Religious people make inventions and practice science just like scientists.

Many religious precepts are likely to be just as well founded in reality as theory. Most go back to ancient science anyway.

Why I suppose that is so! Some Swedes are happier than some Danes.
Some math teachers are happier than some doctors.

What "religious people" do or do not do in t he totality of their lives is
of no significance here unless you can tell me how some invention came about as a result of beliefs gained via inspiration / bible reading or any other kind of "being devout".

Many religious precepts are likely to be just as well founded in reality as theory.
Many religious precepts are likely to be just as well founded in reality as theory. Most go back to ancient science anyway.

That could mean almost anything. But it sure does not show how
"inspiration" or, bible readin' generates beliefs that are somehow
equal /equivalent to what actual hard work can produce.

Most go back to ancient science anyway.

"Ancient science" is a chimera.

 

[Audie]

That people extrapolate their beliefs is proven by the fact that everyone fills in the gaps in what they see and experience. Each person with his own unique perspective sees everything and no two people see the same thing.

Your answer is 100% irrelevant and unresponsive.

I kinda think it could also be called an attempt at evasion, when you were
called on your rather ridiculous and unsupportable assertion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Simply stated each individual using the software that comes from modern language believes what he chooses to believe and then acts on those beliefs until eventually becoming those beliefs. Those who "believe" in science are simply extrapolating theory to apply to the real world, and we usually do it incorrectly. This is proven by the simple fact that nobody can predict the future. Even where it concerns gross processes or short term we all have a terrible track record predicting the future.

Indeed, it is only in prediction that any science can prove itself. Deviation from theory always shows that it was theory that was wrong. Ancient science and modern science were both invented to make prediction. It is its ability to make accurate prediction that makes anything a science.

I'm not sure what you are complaining about here. Science enables prediction in all manner of ways, whether it is weather, the ability to place planetary probes on a distant planet, etc., all require accurate predictions. We may not be great about predicting the future with regards many events - earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, for example - but we seem to be getting better as we understand more about plate tectonics. Did those in the past even know about such things or even about different continents? Not really. As I said in my earliest post, they just did not know probably a hundredth of what we know now. How then, or why really, would we consider they have anything of value to tell us.

 

[cladking]

As I said in my earliest post, they just did not know probably a hundredth of what we know now. How then, or why really, would we consider they have anything of value to tell us.

We know a million times more than we did in 1900 and hundred million times more than in 1800.

The problem is we don't even know the tiniest percentage of a billionth of everything there is to know and never will. We'll never be able to predict anything in the long term or the small scale.

 

[cladking]

We may not be great about predicting the future with regards many events - earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, for example - but we seem to be getting better as we understand more about plate tectonics.

You're looking at things we do know or might come to know in the future.

I'm talking about the important things like the specific nature of the apple that will fall on the head of the scientist who thereby solves the unified field theory. Maybe if we knew how the future were to unfold we could plant the tree to grow the apple in just the right place and fall in its time. What is the shape of the cloud that will lead a child to wonder the nature of reality on a planet at the other end of the cosmos in countless billions of years?

When we look at things we see what we know and understand. We don't see that we can't predict the weather more than seven days ahead because the forces that shape it are chaotic. We can't predict the future because the future is comprised of events that haven't occurred yet. We can't predict the future because nature is infinitely complex and while the tides of Venus might have no effect on design specification for a bridge in Schenectady they certainly have an effect on that bridge when it is built. These effects are cumulative and eventually affect the future. In the long run they become the present.

Reality takes place in real time and each moment is dependent on the preceding moment where the length of a moment is unknowable but certainly exceedingly brief. Countless atomic collisions are taking place over even the shortest unit of time. Real time unfolds as a result of these collisions and eventually even the most minor collision manifests to have a massive effect in the real world and given sufficient time would affect the entire universe.

Reality is complex to a degree that dwarfs the concept of infinity even if infinity exists at all. The odds against reality unfolding as it has is a number so large that a new means would need to be used to express it at all (10 ^ 10 ^ 10 ^ 10 ^ 10 ^ 10 ^ X) (and even X would be large).

Yet everyone seems to know exactly what they see.

 

[cladking]

"Ancient science" and "Ancient language" seem to be your personal inventions.

I suspect Pyramid Texts thumping is about as unwelcome as Bible thumping but the fact is the literal meaning of the PT suggests there was a thermal anomaly right where the thermal anomaly was found. On this basis I maintain ancient science has been rediscovered and Ancient Language is its metaphysics.

People already have beliefs so a language that doesn't even have the words "belief" or "opinion" must just be gobbledty gook.

 

[cladking]

That could mean almost anything. But it sure does not show how
"inspiration" or, bible readin' generates beliefs that are somehow
equal /equivalent to what actual hard work can produce.

You certainly have a low opinion of faith.

I have a low opinion of all kinds of beliefs and superstitions.