Quotes from scientists

[PruePhillip]

Unexplained, does not mean alien, it means unexplained.

When one considers the distances involved, the energy and time required, other parameters such the quantity of possible planets, and the insignificance of our planet one tends to put their aluminium foil hat in the bin. Note the significance of cosmology here.

You can derail the thread if you want, me i will stick to its premise of "quotes from scientists"

View attachment 34235

Many years ago i did an animation of an alien visiting earth to visit the most dominant lifeform here. They flew past humans, flew past dogs and cats, flew past insects, bees, ants. They event came to the most numerous, dominant lifeform. The virus, they stopped, observed and saw that it was good.

Alas i can no longer find the piece to show.

Yeah, we can quote scientists. But then, scientists are just people like the rest of us.
I am amused when some guy who might be an "entomologist" would be asked for
his thoughts on the meaning of life.

Years ago I reported large carved sandstone blocks in NSW to a scientist who wrote
a paper about the carving in the center of these blocks. She replied she hadn't seen
the blocks "probably of convict origin" which patently they were not. But she had to
step from one black to the next to reach her carving. It was my very first encounter
with a scientist - and my very first lie (aborigines did not carve stone building blocks.)

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah, we can quote scientists. But then, scientists are just people like the rest of us.
I am amused when some guy who might be an "entomologist" would be asked for
his thoughts on the meaning of life.

Years ago I reported large carved sandstone blocks in NSW to a scientist who wrote
a paper about the carving in the center of these blocks. She replied she hadn't seen
the blocks "probably of convict origin" which patently they were not. But she had to
step from one black to the next to reach her carving. It was my very first encounter
with a scientist - and my very first lie (aborigines did not carve stone building blocks.)

You should note the title of this thread

And until you know who carved the blocks then their origin remains unidentified. However taking the history of NSW into account the suggestion that "probably of convict origin" seems to fit.

BTW, scientists are people who have earned a PhD (or similar) and have specialised in making themselves expert in theirs chosen field. You may not like them but you should respect their dedication to improving your life.

 

[PruePhillip]

You should note the title of this thread

And until you know who carved the blocks then their origin remains unidentified. However taking the history of NSW into account the suggestion that "probably of convict origin" seems to fit.

BTW, scientists are people who have earned a PhD (or similar) and have specialised in making themselves expert in theirs chosen field. You may not like them but you should respect their dedication to improving your life.

View attachment 34236

I was a science teacher. Science is my hobby.
But I understand the limitations of science, and its abuse (ie there's "no evidence of
King David" in the bible - meaning "he didn't exist," which is a false premise as he did
exist)
The huge stones were incredibly water worn and held strange carvings. Not convict.
But this anthropologist lied because she DID encounter these stones.

It's interesting. Someone charted how science progresses with a new generation of
thinkers (ie Bohr, Einstein, Rutherford) and then science slows as they men move
into academies and established science positions. It takes a new generation of
scientists to wait out the older generation. Think of Linus Pauling telling Shechtman
"there's no such thing as quasi crystals, only quasi scientists."

The above quote, BTW, is a good one. Only, it doesn't apply to the realm of theology.

 

[PruePhillip]

I've been collecting quotes from scientists. Thought I'd share some. (One per post so people can comment if they want).

Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it. (Blaise Pascal)

“There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists”.
Linus Pauling debunking the discoverer of quasi-crystals.


During his sabbatical leave in the U.S., an Israeli scientist, the 41-year-old Dan Shechtman observed a crystal of
alloy of aluminium with manganese under an electron microscope. Suddenly, he discerned something he could
not believe – a structure that according to the then state of knowledge could not exist. He saw a circle of concentric
circles, each of which consisted of ten dots. And even though he himself thought it to be impossible, he stated that
they must be crystals having five-axis symmetry, later named quasicrystals. They were characterised by regularly
spaced atoms whose order, however, is never repeated, i.e. were aperiodic. Nevertheless, according to current
knowledge, all crystals were built in an orderly, periodic way.

One against all
‘This is what was proclaimed by the classical crystallography. It seemed that everything is clear here,’ says Professor
Janusz Wolny from the Department of Condensed Matter Physics, AGH University of Science and Technology in
Kraków, who personally knows the Nobel Prize winner. ‘Shechtman destroyed the paradigm that had reigned for 300
years on periodic structure of crystals. This construction was related to the existence of the symmetry of two, three,
four and six axes. Until 1982, everybody had been convinced that there was no such thing as five-axis symmetry, and
this was exactly what Shechtman recognised in the studied crystals. Not only was he lucky that he stumbled across
them, but he also was brave enough to begin to study them. He met with rejection of his discovery very fast – his boss,
the famous crystallographer John W. Cahn did not believe him (however in 1984, they wrote an article on that together).
Soon after the discovery, Shechtman wanted to publish his findings. However, the reviews were negative, and the Israeli
was not taken seriously by the scientific community, which accused him of overly developed imagination. ‘He should read
the manual again,’ some of them mocked. Others argued that what he saw under the electron microscope were “twins”
as interconnected crystals are known in crystallography.
His main opponent was the respected twice Nobel Prize winner (in chemistry and peace) Linus Pauling. He claimed that
Shechtman’s arguments are uninteresting, and his words have gone down in history: “There is no such thing as
quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists”.

Quasi-scientist gets Nobel

"In frontier science, there is not much difference between science
and religion. I didn't do anything wrong. My ideas were just unique,
special and different from mainstream research."

Dan Shechtman
Nobel Prize winner in chemistry Israeli scientist Daniel Shechtman's profile

 

[ChristineM]

which is a false premise as he did exist

Evidence? As a science teacher you must realise the importance of evidence (not suggestion or questionable translation)

 

[tayla]

I think that this is an example of what I call the Philosopher's Error: mistaking a failure of imagination for a philosophical insight.

There's no doubt that there is a "hard problem" in understanding consciousness, but the fact that it is hard does not make it impossible. And one must account for the fact that consciousness can be deliberately made to cease (as under a general anaesthetic) which certainly seems to imply that it can be accounted for by something, and is not, therefore, fundamental. The fact that we don't yet understand what that something is doesn't change that.

Yes, I found his quote suspect as well.

Thanks for the good summary with a clear perspective. The only thing additional I think we need to consider is that the universe allows for consciousness to arise in certain situations. Somehow it's built-in to the universe.

 

[tayla]

Theology has no authority unless one chooses to treat it as authoritative. Theology is faith-based, which, to me, is an invalid method for determining what is true about the world. How can a method which equally supports belief in two mutually exclusive ideas be a path to truth, since at least one of those two beliefs is incorrect?

Yes, I reject truths claims from theology unless verified independently via philosophy and science.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, I found his quote suspect as well.

Thanks for the good summary with a clear perspective. The only thing additional I think we need to consider is that the universe allows for consciousness to arise in certain situations. Somehow it's built-in to the universe.

Let me try to give my own view as concisely as possible. This is opinion, and I can offer no proof.

In a universe of cause and effect, objects and forces react to the other objects and forces around them. A couple of examples:

• The cue ball hits the 5 ball at just the right angle, causing the 5 to head off in a slightly different direction and end up tidily in the side pocket. Was either ball "conscious" of it's role in this little scenario? I don't think so -- I think physics alone can account for it perfectly.
• A beam of light, emitted about 8 1/2 minutes ago from our sun, enters a prism hanging in my window, and the photons of different energies bend as they pass through at slightly different angles, causing quite a beautiful rainbow on the front of my refrigerator. Any of those photons conscious of what they're doing? Or the prism? I don't think so.

Good, so far it's all physics, at the level of action and reaction, event and response. There is nothing that one could really consider "consciousness" here.

But what if the face of a school kid is contacted rather violently by the closed fist of another kid at recess? Yes, there will be action/reaction -- the kid who is hit will find his head moving back in the direction of the blow. But something else will happen, too. Within that kid's head, neurons that register the blow, the pain, the reaction of the head, will inform other neurons within the same head. This is a "second-order" reaction, a whole new set of reactions based, not on the original blow, but on the internal reactions to the blow. It is here, at the second order, or perhaps you may wish to call it "feedback," that consciousness begins to exist.

 

[tayla]

Theology has no authority unless one chooses to treat it as authoritative. Theology is faith-based, which, to me, is an invalid method for determining what is true about the world. How can a method which equally supports belief in two mutually exclusive ideas be a path to truth, since at least one of those two beliefs is incorrect?

Yes, I reject truths claims from theology unless verified independently via philosophy and science.

 

[tayla]

if this god is undetectable even in principle, there is no need to be aware of it, since it would be indistinguishable from its own nonexistence.

Yes, good point. The problem for theists is, what is the mechanism by which God (or souls or angels or spirits) interacts with the universe in such a way that we can't detect it? For theists to merely claim something like, "he just does", is, I think, a poor argument.

 

[tayla]

If "supreme power" includes the laws of physics in a blind, godless universe, then yes, you cannot understand the universe without understanding the order underlying it.

But when I see "Supreme Power" capitalized, some people will read that as a god.

I wonder why scientists sometimes feel the need to use the language of the supernatural to express their feelings? Seems like doing so can have no good benefit.

 

[tayla]

Schrodinger doesn't know that for a fact. He is making a faith-based pronunciation which may in fact be correct, but if so, can only be believed by faith at this time.

Yes, good point.

 

[tayla]

How about based on evidence, Blaise? Proof is not necessary to believe since there are degrees of belief. One's degree of certitude should be commensurate with the quality and quantity of the evidence available, and amenable to revision pending new evidence that makes that belief more or less likely to be correct. The best evidence that an idea is correct is that it works - it can be used to anticipate and perhaps control outcomes

Haha. Good point.

 

[tayla]

The magnificence of 'artifice'.

Yes, his quote seems idiotic to me too. Why can't scientists think before they speak?

 

[tayla]

Is it must for the Skeptics/Humanists to love truth

Yes. The purpose of critical thinking is to determine truth.

 

[tayla]

"I, at any rate am convinced that [God] does not throw dice."

Einstein, expressing dissatisfaction with the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. This one is interesting, as he seems to have been wrong about it.

But is the randomness of quantum mechanics really random? How do we know something (someone) is not guiding the outcomes? (but is a manner that looks random to us).

 

[tayla]

I love the work by Peter Fenwick on this topic. He suggests from experiences with patients
who are technically brain dead, yet have "experiences" during this time, that perhaps
consciousness lies outside the brain. If so, then where?

Not everyone finds his work so trustworthy. And how do we know that the experiences were actually experienced when the brain was not functioning? Could it not be that they were generated once the brain became conscious again?

 

[tayla]

You read this when you someone speaks of possible extraterrestrial UFO's
(I worked with the famous Frank Valentich's brother once - the guy who
vanished after reporting an UFO) where radar has tracked such objects
traveling at speeds much higher than any human vehicle. And oddly, there
is "no evidence" for the UFO - as if the radar isn't evidence, nor the eye
witnesses.

Perhaps many UFOs are ball lightening?

 

[tayla]

It is here, at the second order, or perhaps you may wish to call it "feedback," that consciousness begins to exist.

Yes, consciousness is generated in the brain. But the potential of the experience of consciousness must be inherent in the universe, just like the potential for the electric force to arise in certain situations.

 

[PruePhillip]

Evidence? As a science teacher you must realise the importance of evidence (not suggestion or questionable translation)

Not directly. Jews did not build monuments to themselves.
What we know is there are two inscriptions speaking of
"the house of David." Meaning a dynasty, which is usually
named after the first King.

But many who claimed "there is no evidence of King David"
don't openly say now, "I was wrong." They move onto some
thing else. This is one reason why I am impressed by the
bible - the intellectual dishonesty of many of its enemies.