You Don't Understand...

[metis]

I agree... but at the same time, one can begin to wonder if over time, it became more political and money driven than genuine science review. You know, back when you were young as compared to today

There are always going to be some in any field whose primary goal will be $, thus it's important, imo, to keep a sharp eye on who's saying what and what may be their motivation. Peer review can be ruthless because any falsification would generally be called out in a heartbeat.

Can we say the same when it comes to religion? Hardly, as we've repeatedly seen. And why this is the case with the latter is because religious beliefs are based on faith, not empirical evidence. This is why religious debates rage as it's virtually impossible to prove much of anything. Even Torah study recognizes this, which is why the "commentary system" was and is so important in Judaism as different sages often had different takes. Early Christianity was much the same as the early Church fathers often disagreed. The Nicene Creed is a case in point because there's a logical insistency in it that was part of a compromise in order to bring those in Arianism aboard with the Church.

So, I don't disagree with you, but that science is really quite well policed, and this "policing" doesn't mean nor imply compliance-- as a matter of fact, just the opposite.

Have a Happy 4th weekend, my friend.

BTW, a good way to make sure a bottle rocket doesn't go off in the wrong direction, just sit on it. Let me know how that turns out, OK?

 

[Bathos Logos]

Do you think experience is not reality? Is that absent from science?
What really is your point?

Experience that can't be corroborated by others intrinsically? Yes... that type of experience is usually kept out of science - or, at least, out of reports to be had as the end results of scientific works. Let me know if you ever find a scientific paper that concludes that something exists because the scientist ate some funny mushrooms and "saw it".

 

[nPeace]

No. Not at all. Maybe that's your problem? If you are able to believe that history is reality? Who knows what else you're willing to believe.

Some super easy examples that blow your "written records of history are reality" trash-talk:

1. Colonizing Americans' treatment of Native Americans
2. Russia's accounts of the reasons for the war in Ukraine

How could you possibly believe that "written records of history" represent reality as a standard? How?

Strawman. I know American history. It's real.
Lies don't make it, not real.

 

[nPeace]

Experience that can't be corroborated by others intrinsically? Yes... that type of experience is usually kept out of science - or, at least, out of reports to be had as the end results of scientific works. Let me know if you ever find a scientific paper that concludes that something exists because the scientist ate some funny mushrooms and "saw it".

You probably misunderstood me.
Experience as in what a person actually knows from the past, and present.
Do scientists use that?

 

[Bathos Logos]

Strawman. I know American history. It's real.
Lies don't make it, not real.

Yes, the truth finally came out, but do you know what I learned when I was a kid? Not that the ancestors of those who now call themselves "Americans" basically stole all this land out from under people they pushed and prodded West until there was nowhere else to go. What I learned wasn't even close to that. And even now that I know some of the more grisly details, do you honestly think that I feel confident that I have "the whole story" with respect to what on? You obviously feel that you do! Where did you get such confidence? How were you able to pick out the true bits from the false?

 

[Bathos Logos]

You probably misunderstood me.
Experience as in what a person actually knows from the past, and present.
Do scientists use that?

So, from the past and the present, what is it that you think that you "know" that scientists can't literally go and study the details of? Or rather, what experience do you think you have had, that some others categorically cannot have, but that you think reflects some portion of reality that everyone should accept and worry over?

 

[nPeace]

Yes, the truth finally came out, but do you know what I learned when I was a kid? Not that the ancestors of those who now call themselves "Americans" basically stole all this land out from under people they pushed and prodded West until there was nowhere else to go. What I learned wasn't even close to that. And even now that I know some of the more grisly details, do you honestly think that I feel confident that I have "the whole story" with respect to what on? You obviously feel that you do! Where did you get such confidence? How were you able to pick out the true bits from the false?

Good question.
The true bits were verified, or supported by secondary sources - you know.... primary and secondary sources are very reliable sources of evidence.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Good question.
The true bits were verified, or supported by secondary sources - you know.... primary and secondary sources are very reliable sources of evidence.

But they are not "reality". Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[Jose Fly]

What really is your point?

I gotta say.....right back at ya.

What really is your point?

Scientists make assumptions. Scientists use words like "may" and "likely". Scientists don't always get answers 100% right the very first time. Scientists sometimes reach conclusions based on limited data. Scientists sometimes revise their conclusions in light of new info.

As far as I can tell, no one in this thread is disputing any of that, yet you keep posting examples of scientists doing those things in a "Aha! Caught em!" kind of way.

So what really is your point here?

 

[nPeace]

So, from the past and the present, what is it that you think that you "know" that scientists can't literally go and study the details of? Or rather, what experience do you think you have had, that some others categorically cannot have, but that you think reflects some portion of reality that everyone should accept and worry over?

Excuse me?
What are we talking about here... science or religious texts?
Not sure which, but I'll take a shot.

Scientists can study the details of this.
People united universally, regardless of race, background, nationality - demonstrating love based on one "letter", and unified in thought, based on one letter.

Scientists can study this, but it requires hubris to be absent.
One thread is found to run through the 66 documents making up one book, though written by some 40 different individuals over a period of 1600 years - making a complete "project".

 

[nPeace]

But they are not "reality". Do you understand what I am saying?

What's not reality?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it isn't.

It is, and I have explained several times now how it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True... but not exactly true...

"By the 1800’s there was overwhelming evidence that modern species had evolved from earlier species. The question was: How? There seemed to be only three possibilities: chance, physical necessity, or divine intervention.

All three are incorrect.
A false trichotomy, if you will.

None of which provided a satisfactory explanation. Then Darwin discovered a fourth possibility and successfully explained evolution by a process of natural selection.

Yep.

Chance plays a part in evolution, but only a part. Physical laws and natural selection are also part of the process."

So, yes... but no.

No, absolutely YES.

But again you may not understand why. And it is rooted in ignorance of the theory you are religiously hell-bend on rejecting.

The answer was even encapsulated in how you described it.
You asked the question: What drives it to be where it is optimal?

Not mutation. Mutation factually occurs. Organisms reproduce with variation. This is a fact.
Evolution as a process, uses that variation as the input of changes.
Mutation "drives" the input of changes. It does NOT drive which changes stick and which don't.

Natural selection does that.
So what drives it to be where it is optimal, is natural selection

Consider mutation as being a bag of changes that you throw against the wall. The majority falls to the ground. A few stick.

It's not chance that decides this.
It is natural selection. Each one of the changes is weighed and measured in the struggle for life.
What sticks is what works BEST. Not chance based at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Listening is an art. I find Atheists lack in this... big time.

I have listened.

Ironically, I have even listened better to creationist propaganda then many creationist followers.
It happens hilariously often that I actually have to even correct creationists on their own absurdities because they present the arguments from the propaganda incorrectly.

I even dare say that I could present the case for ID for example a lot better then a lot of cdesign proponentsists on this forum.


Anyhow... Rest assured, I'm very well aware of the "reasoning" and "arguments" used by various types of creationists.

This is not my first rodeo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you think reality is? Is it not historical? Is it not written records of history? Is it not what is reported or transmitted from actual persons, of actual events?
I fail to see the point of your argument.

Reality is that which doesn't change regardless of what people say, believe or think.

And no, superstitious anecdotes from ancient times don't necessarily reflect reality. And considering the nature of the claims you specifically are referring to, we can be quite certain it doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You probably misunderstood me.
Experience as in what a person actually knows from the past, and present.
Do scientists use that?

Not in the way you are hoping.

 

[Kenny]

There are always going to be some in any field whose primary goal will be $, thus it's important, imo, to keep a sharp eye on who's saying what and what may be their motivation. Peer review can be ruthless because any falsification would generally be called out in a heartbeat.

Can we say the same when it comes to religion? Hardly, as we've repeatedly seen. And why this is the case with the latter is because religious beliefs are based on faith, not empirical evidence. This is why religious debates rage as it's virtually impossible to prove much of anything. Even Torah study recognizes this, which is why the "commentary system" was and is so important in Judaism as different sages often had different takes. Early Christianity was much the same as the early Church fathers often disagreed. The Nicene Creed is a case in point because there's a logical insistency in it that was part of a compromise in order to bring those in Arianism aboard with the Church.

So, I don't disagree with you, but that science is really quite well policed, and this "policing" doesn't mean nor imply compliance-- as a matter of fact, just the opposite.

Have a Happy 4th weekend, my friend.

BTW, a good way to make sure a bottle rocket doesn't go off in the wrong direction, just sit on it. Let me know how that turns out, OK?

As always... concise, detailed and very well said.



As always, in great esteem

Ken

 

[Tiberius]

Isn't that the point? Because no one has figured it out they are exploring hypothesis?

As far as dwindling, how much is "dwindling"?

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Sounds more like non-beliers are dwindling.

Don't drink the koolaid.

Scientists and Belief

Of course, the survey only looks at the present, and it doesn't show how belief among scientists has changed over time, so I don't think you can say that non-believers are the ones dwindling in number.

But what the survey makes very clear is that the proportion of scientists who lack belief is far greater than that in the general population.

 

[Tiberius]

I think that question has been answered already. @nPeace is just as baffled and confused at how science works as I was when I watched our pastor anoint someone with oil and lay hands on them because they had the flu. Even when I'd ask questions about how that works, the answers I got just didn't make sense to me.

It's probably the same for nPeace with science. He seems to be baffled by the fact that scientists do make assumptions, don't always get the absolute correct answer the first time, use words like "may" and "likely", draw conclusions when they have limited data, and sometimes revise those conclusions. And he seems to be even more baffled at how folks like us don't see any of that as problematic.

So no, the scientific way of thinking just doesn't resonate with him at all, and that will probably always be the case.

In my experience, many religious people who don't understand science think that science is just another religion, with a body of facts that must not be questioned, etc. And then when they see that science doesn't work the same way a religion works, they assume that science must be broken, because if a religion acted that way, the religion would be broken. They don't seem able to grasp that science is a completely different way of looking at the world.

 

[Kenny]

Of course, the survey only looks at the present, and it doesn't show how belief among scientists has changed over time, so I don't think you can say that non-believers are the ones dwindling in number.

But what the survey makes very clear is that the proportion of scientists who lack belief is far greater than that in the general population.

That would be a better statement than the one he offered.